Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday we were able to cover many more Questions because supplementary questions and ministerial replies were much briefer. I hope that we can do the same today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Young Persons

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what immediate plans she has for improving educational provision for the 16-to-19 age group.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 will enable local education authorities, if they so choose, to devote extra resources to this age group. Other current initiatives include the additions to educational building programmes for next year which were announced recently, the youth opportunities programme, the expansion of further education announced in association with this, and the pilot schemes for unified vocational preparation, directed to young people in employment.

Mr. Thorne: I welcome the Minister's remarks about what the Department is presently doing, but does he agree that

the times has come to phase out discretionary grants completely and to ensure that young people in this age group have the right to a full-time education, should they wish?

Mr. Oakes: The cost of phasing out discrentionary grants entirely would be enormous but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is at present a survey of local authorities to see how discretionary grants are operating. It is hoped that this will be available for Ministers this week or next week.

Dr. Hampson: Will the Minister go beyond that and ask the Prime Minister to set up, as a matter of urgency, a review into the work of all the Departments and agencies involved in the grants in this area, and into the fees policy? It is a total mess, and there are gross disincentives for young people doing full-time courses in the craft and technician areas that we all want to see expanded.

Mr. Oakes: I think there is a great deal of agreement in the House about these matters. We need, first, to have the facts from the review of what local authorities are doing, and then we can consider any action that may be necessary on those facts.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing evidence that young people and their parents, particularly from lower income groups, are now aware of the discrepancies in the system of support and are playing one element against another, often to the detriment of their education? Is my hon. Friend aware that barbarian local education authorities, such as my own Tory-controlled authority in Shropshire, propose to have virtually no discretionary grants next year?

Mr. Oakes: Again, I think we have to look at the review and see the difference in pattern between different authorities before we decide on any action.

Truancy

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the current level of truancy in secondary schools in England and Wales at the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): A survey in 1974 of attend-


ance in all maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales showed that just over 2 per cent. of pupils were absent without a known legitimate reason on the day of the survey. On the basis of a number of more recent local surveys of which we are aware, this proportion seems to have remained more or less constant.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not true that in some schools in inner city areas the truancy absenteeism is of the order of 50 per cent? Is it not also likely that for those who play physical truant there are many more playing mental truant? Is it not, therefore, apparent that some alternative means need to be devised whereby we can assist in preparing for work many young people who will otherwise be kissing goodbye to the education system?

Miss Jackson: I know of no evidence to suggest that the figure the hon. Gentleman quotes, of 50 per cent. absence, is substantially correct. If he knows of any examples I should be grateful if he would let me know. Certainly we are aware of the problem of keeping the interest of young people, particularly in their last year at school. There has been a great deal of discussion and work on how to do this through, for example, work experience schemes.

Mr. Sims: Is the hon. Lady aware that a court appearance accompanied by an appropriate warning can often have a salutary effect both on the truant and his or her parent? Is she satisfied that education and welfare officers are aware of their powers, and will she ensure that they are fully used?

Miss Jackson: I am satisfied that education and welfare officers know their powers and that they use them. However, it is known from some of the recent surveys that in quite a number of cases parents are consenting to the absence of their children. But it is for the local authorities to decide—and they do so usually on sound grounds—when and how they intend to bring a prosecution.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of becoming obsessed with the problem of truancy and forgetting about the important rôle of the education and welfare

officer and the service that he can provide particularly with regard to school clothes and other items that are mentioned in a later Question?

Non-Maintained Schools (Local Education Authority Places)

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to the placement by local education authorities of children in schools in the private sector of education.

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give figures indicating the number of fee-paying places taken up by local education authorities in independent and voluntary schools for each year since 1970.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The Government are committed to reducing local education authorities' take-up of places at non-maintained schools to the minimum required in the light of the criteria set out in my Department's circular 6/77, and I therefore expect a substantial drop in the number of places over the next few years. In 1976–77 just under 6,000 new places were taken up by English authorities under standing arrangements with non-maintained schools—about 2,200 of these at independent schools and the rest at direct grant schools. The figures do not include handicapped pupils or arrangements made in respect of other pupils on an individual basis. I regret that figures are not available for earlier years.

Mr. Durant: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts in the rate support grant, particularly in areas like Berkshire—together with her very tough attitude—are making it increasingly difficult for local education authorities to provide the parental choice for single-sex and denominational schools that they would wish?

Mrs. Williams: We have made it quite clear in our circular that the only ground upon which local authorities should take places in independent schools is if there is an absolute shortage of provision in the maintained system or an absolute shortage of provision in the denominational system. It is not part of our


policy to make these places available simply for academic purposes.

Miss Lestor: Will my right hon. Friend say how many such places have been approved for the years 1978 and 1979? Is she pursuing discussions with the Chancellor regarding the wastage of public money in relation to the charitable status of independent schools?

Mrs. Williams: On the first point, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have gone only a very short way in getting returns, because the period has not yet elapsed. However, it is clear that there will be an overall reduction of at least 25 per cent. in these places in the current year. That, of course, includes those children who started and, therefore, carry on to the end of the period—which is normally accepted by local authorities. The second part of my hon. Friend's question goes much wider than myself, but I can say that studies and investigations are being made.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the effect of the Secretary of State's policy to deprive parents of modest means of educational opportunity? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, exactly. Is the right hon. Lady not encouraging parental choice in theory but denying it in practice? Is that what she intends, or is it perhaps that her right hand does not know what her left hand is doing?

Mrs. Williams: The Secretary of State's right and left hands work harmoniously together. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear, in our view, that a system which enables parents to choose places in independent schools, with authorities paying for them, is a system that will wreck the effort to get higher standards in the maintained sector. Within this sector we believe that many parental wishes can be met but we are quite clear that the first priority is the attainment of high standards in maintained schools.

Mr. Hooley: Is it true that the Government themselves are proposing to set up a special private school for the children of European scientists who will be working on the JET project?

Mrs. Williams: It is not a private school. Discussions are going on about whether there should be a school which

meets European qualifications for those pupils who come here from Community countries. Of course, the baccalaureate is normally the qualification which they need. However, my hon. Friend would be wrong in assuming that this will be an independent school in the sense that we understand it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely the Secretary of State cannot possibly support her statement that the use of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have questions and not arguments.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It was a question, Mr. Speaker. How can the right hon. Lady support her statement that the use of the private education system would wreck the maintained system when the foundation of that system—the 1944 Act—envisaged the use of the private school because local authorities have to see that schools are available, and do not have to provide them?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman appears to forget that since the 1944 Act there has been a 1976 Act, which gave me the power, among other things, to restrict places in independent schools. The House, by its own vote, is now committed to comprehensive education, and creaming off a substantial number of children to independent schools is simply not compatible with good comprehensive education.

Pupil Grants

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the levels of grant available to pupils for distinctive clothing—school uniform—educational maintenance allowances, and help with travel to and from school costs; and what steps she is taking to improve this help, particularly to pupils whose parents have very low incomes.

Miss Margaret Jackson: We have never been satisfied with the level of educational welfare benefits available to pupils whose parents have very low incomes and we are continuing to seek ways of improving the arrangements within present financial constraints.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend realise that low-income families, faced with the high cost of education, believe


that she and her Department have a callous disregard for their problems, since all they get is sympathy and promises but no action? When will my hon. Friend show that she really cares by taking some positive action?

Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, we have had many discussions with the people involved in this area. It is true to say that we are sympathetic, but many of the steps that my hon. Friend wishes to see carried out would require legislation.

Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware that part of the Question refers to school transport? In view of the fact that in Bedfordshire children over 14 who live 2·8 miles away from the school have to pay a full bus fare, when will the Government make alterations in the rules governing school transport?

Miss Jackson: We have been trying for a considerable time to get local authorities and their associations to agree to changes in the provision of school transport, but so far they have been unwilling to do so.

Mr. Noble: Is my hon. Friend aware that the transport costs for the parents of disabled children who have to attend special schools a great distance away are often particularly onerous? Will she enter into discussions, particularly with Lancashire County Council, about the anomalies that exist there, where children can be taken to a special school for the deaf in one town yet next door they have to be taken by their parents, who are also of limited means?

Miss Jackson: I shall follow up the point that my hon. Friend has made, but I am not sure whether I entirely understood him to say that in both cases the children were handicapped. We are look-at the general question of school transport.

Leeds

Mr. Albert Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from Leeds City Council concerning the financial resources available for education in the city.

Mr. Oakes: I met representatives of the authority this month to discuss school

building allocations. Its allocation of £916,000 for 1977–78 has now been increased by a total of £535,000. Last week it asked that its 1978–79 allocation of £990,000 should be increased to £2·6 million. This request is still being considered. The authority has been invited to bid for allocations under the £17 million programme in 1978–79 to assist secondary reorganisation recently announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of my constituency is now in the city of Leeds? It is true that the schools in the old part of my constituency are excellent, but will my hon. Friend note that now that I have to take some interest in the city of Leeds I am aware of the need to reappraise the whole situation so that we can get rid of the Dickensian schools in the old part of the city?

Mr. Oakes: We are considering the authority's request for £2·6 million, and I emphasise that in terms of the reorganisation money, there is a possibility that some of the £17 million for secondary schools in 1978–79 will be available for Leeds.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that there is an increased allocation. However, is he aware that it does nothing for the school in my constituency, the Castleton primary school, which has been referred to as a scandal school and which has had its roof propped up for three years? If no further resources are forthcoming, the children will have to continue to be educated in the most squalid conditions. Can he give them any hope for the immediate future?

Mr. Oakes: I never cease to admire the tenacity of my hon. Friend in raising the problems of Castleton primary school on every possible occasion. The authority has not yet included the school in a building programme, but it appears on the list of projects covered by the request for an additional £1·6 million in 1978–79.

Cambridgeshire Education Authority

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is aware that the Cambridgeshire Education Authority has had to make cuts in its education services because of lack of rate support grant;


what steps she proposes to take to help the authority to overcome this problem in the current financial year; and whether she will give an undertaking that adequate funds will be made available for improving educational services in the coming financial year.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes, Sir. The rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 offers some measure of protection to local authorities like Cambridgeshire who lost grant in 1977–78. I understand that the authority's share of grant next year should differ only fractionally from its 1977–78 share. For details of the settlement, I refer the right hon. Member to the rep12, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 18th November.—[Vol. 939, c. 389–9.]

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the situation in Cambridgeshire is most unsatisfactory and that in the coming financial year, following severe cuts and great increases in the present financial year, further cuts will have to be made in education services despite a 20 per cent. increase in rates? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with that sort of education provision in Cambridgeshire?

Mrs. Williams: I am not satisfied. However, it must be made clear that Cambridgeshire made proposals for a cut in the education budget of £1·75 million in the coming year before it knew the result of the rate support grant settlement. I understand that its decisions were provisional, and, further, that since the difference is at most a fractional one it is up to the authority now to reconsider what were very drastic proposals.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to comment upon the general effect of rate support grant on teacher employment across the country?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. If teacher numbers were to follow the school population, which will fall by more than 100,000 between 1977–78 and 1978–79, there would be a reduction overall of 3,700 teaching posts. In fact what we have done is to make provision for an additional 1,000 teachers in deprived areas, an additional 1,800 teachers to allow the induction year to start, an additional 1,700 teachers to allow in-service training, and an additional 6,800 teachers to allow an operating margin in the light

of falling rolls. Altogether, this means that in the rate support grant settlement there will be 11,300 more teaching posts than there would have been if the RSG had not been altered in this way.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed that question to be answered, but it goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Freud: In view of the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment in distributing rate support grant, does the right hon. Lady feel that her Department has sufficient powers to ensure adequate education standards for the children of Cambridgeshire?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know, since he and his hon. Friends frequently talk to me about teacher unemployment, that one of the matters that I am most concerned about is the absence of specific powers to make sure that rate support grant is spent on education when it is allocated for education. This means that everything I say about the rate support grant settlement depends on whether local authorities spend the money that has been made available for that purpose.

Comprehensive Education (Lancashire)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has had with the Lancashire County Council Education Authority about the introduction of a fully comprehensive system of secondary education; and if she will make a statement.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Officials have had numerous discussions with the authority's officers during recent weeks about various schemes for the comprehensive reorganisation of schools in Lancashire.

Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot have comprehensive education where there is a scattering of comprehensive schools in a selective system? Will she press the Lancashire County Council, therefore, to get rid of the hotch-potch in Rossendale and ensure that when it is replaced we do not get the kind of system that has been proposed by the county council for Burnley?

Miss Jackson: We are indeed opposed to the retention of selective schools, and I understand that in Lancashire only 21


schools remain selective. We hope to see speedy progress towards their change to comprehensive schools. As for the schemes that may be put forward, this is a matter for the authority at this stage.

Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Lady aware that last Sunday night a substantial proportion of Wellacre secondary school was burned to the ground? Will she ask her right hon. Friend to undertake to give every assistance to the Trafford Education Authority to see that proper provision is made for the accommodation of the children and for the rebuilding of those classrooms?

Miss Jackson: It is up to the authority to give priority to problems of this kind. However, we normally look sympathetically at such difficulties.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not my hon. Friend consider it absurd that, with comprehensive education having been introduced in Ormskirk, the governors of the former Ormskirk Grammar School should now wish to maintain that name for the school—a reflection on the snobbishness of the governors and those who support them, and something that will be socially divisive? Will my hon. Friend assure me that she will take positive action to ensure that that name does not remain in being?

Miss Jackson: I am not sure that I have any power to take such action. But I must agree that it is an extraordinary step to take. I wonder whether it comes within the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Acts as an inaccurate description.

University Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take to improve university teachers' pay and to remove disparities in their pay as compared with that of other sectors.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 21st November.

Mr. Winterton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the undergraduate student population has increased by 6·5

per cent., with only a very marginal increase of 0·07 per cent. in staff? Will she therefore consider discussing with the universities a productivity deal comparable with those negotiated in industry as a possible route to the rectification of university teachers' salary anomalies, and will she treat the matter with the utmost urgency?

Mrs. Williams: This matter has also been brought to my attention by the Association of University Teachers. There is no difference between us in taking the view that there has been an anomaly arising from the failure to pay the cost of living award in 1975, which was caught by the pay policy in the case of university teachers but not in the ease of further education teachers. The Government's view is that this anomaly must be put right as soon as the pay policy makes that possible.

Mr. Litterick: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to develop an integrated salary structure for all academic staff in the higher education sector?

Mrs. Williams: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He will appreciate that one of the problems is that the two sectors are represented by different organisations. It is my long-term wish to rationalise further the salary payments for further education teachers in non-advanced courses and teachers in sixth-form schools.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware how deep is the discontent of university teachers, who feel that the way that they have been treated since 1975 indicates that this Government are anti-academic staff and anti-university? Is she aware also that phases 1 and 2 of the incomes policy discriminate against highly trained and qualified staff and that one-fifth of the staff at the London School of Economics emigrated to America in 1976 to escape the present pay policy here?

Mrs. Williams: First, I am aware that many university teachers feel that there is a serious anomaly. Secondly, I am aware—because a number of them have said as much to me—that university teachers believe that the Government's pay policy is essential to the economic survival of the country. Thirdly, I am bound to say that the


Opposition constantly play ducks and drakes with this policy and that it would be a very good idea if they came out with the truth.

Industrial Requirements

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps she intends to take to improve the capacity of the education system to meet the requirements of British industry.

Mr. Oakes: My Department's review of local education authorities' curricular arrangements for schools includes questions about the preparation of pupils for working life. Other important new initiatives include the development of enriched engineering degree courses and the introduction of an industrial scholarship scheme to start in 1978–79. We are seeking to extend and to improve links between education and industry and to raise the level of understanding of industry among teachers, students and pupils at all levels of education.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Minister agree that neither from the point of view of all the number of additional extra places announced by the Secretary of State earlier nor in terms of the extra sum of money announced in the last few weeks, is there anything allocated to careers teaching, particularly the kind that involves work sampling and work experience? Should we not have a new urgent strategy if we are to take seriously the problem of cooperation between industry and school? Even the Minister of State a few weeks ago said——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question is developing into a speech.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Minister agree that one cannot just sit around? Will he say what the Government intend to do?

Mr. Oakes: We are far from sitting around. The specific point about careers teachers and craft teachers was mentioned in the Green Paper published this summer. My right hon. Friend and I never cease to take the opportunity to stress the importance of industrial and educational links. It is a matter of attitude and, in the interests of the nation, those attitudes must be changed.

Mr. Clemitson: Although British industry may need more skills, may I ask

my hon. Friend whether it needs more workers? Should not education increasingly be concerned with providing, for people of all ages, a constructive alternative to unemployment?

Mr. Oakes: I agree with my hon. Friend, but we are faced with the ironic situation that in a country with about 1·5 million unemployed, many industries still have an acute shortage of skilled people. This is a matter which the careers and education services between them must try to solve.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since we have already had a Select Committee report on this subject, a White Paper in reply to it, and a Green Paper, is it not time for the Minister to use his influence with the Lord President of the Council to arrange for an early debate on this subject?

Mr. Oakes: That is a matter for the Lord President of the Council and this House.

Handicapped Children

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she plans to implement Section 10 of the Education Act 1976 on the integration of handicapped children.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The integration of handicapped children is already taking place in varying degrees. Section 10 will make this development a statutory obligation, but my right hon. Friend will await the report of the Warnock Committee early next year before deciding precisely when and how the section should be implemented in all areas.

Mr. Hannam: In moving to a fuller integration of handicapped children, will the Minister take account of the continuing needs of severely handicapped children—including the blind, the deaf and the mentally handicapped—in special schools? Will she also take account of the need to raise the school leaving age for those children to re-establish the gap that previously existed, in order to enable those children to catch up with normal children?

Miss Jackson: It is already possible for local authorities to make arrangements for children who suffer from the difficulty of not being able to catch up by the age of 16 to stay on in school. Many local


authorities seek to do this. At present it is a matter of the availability of finance. We have no plans at present to raise the school leaving age.

Mr. Ashley: Why is the Department making such heavy weather of these minor difficulties? Is it that Ministers lack the enthusiasm and will to implement this section?

Miss Jackson: No, Sir. We are most concerned about these children. We feel that they should not suffer but should actively benefit from provision made in this respect. We have consulted on these matters, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that we should await the Warnock Report.

School Curricula

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to issue the circular asking local authorities to report on curricular arrangements in their areas.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Today, Sir.

Mr. Forman: Having issued her circular to local authorities, will the right hon. Lady do everything she can to persuade the National Union of Teachers to reconsider the negative advice given to its members in responding to the circular? Secondly, how does she respond to the idea that there might be a natural break at age 14, before which adherence to a common curriculum is necessary and thereafter a more diverse prescription?

Mrs. Williams: I regret that the National Union of Teachers has been reluctant to co-operate fully on curriculum review, although we have had many consultations with them and other teaching organisations. I think that on reflection they will appreciate that there is no wish on the part of my Department to take over central control of the curriculum, but rather to draw the attention to matters of national concern in education, many of which have been pointed to by Select Committees of this House. Perhaps the NUT will reconsider its attitude.
On the second part of the question, I believe that we specialise too early in English and Welsh schools, although I would not wish to see a natural break

at 14. I am sure that we should maintain science for those studying arts and arts for those studying science to a later stage than we now do.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of curriculum is one which teachers will not easily put into the hands of other people? Therefore, it is not a bad thing that they should be worried about this matter. Does she further agree that it is always a good thing in education not to make rapid changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Tory Party wants to make no changes at all. Is it not a fact that people should discuss these matters at great length before coming to a decision?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. I understand what my hon. Friend says about the genuine concern of teachers for their own professional rôle. I hope that he will assure the NUT, of which he is a prominent member, that there is no intention on my part to try to take central control of curriculum. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will appreciate that matters such as multi-racial education, sex discrimination in schools, and the extraordinary provision of mathematical syllabuses, of which there are now over 40, are subjects of genuine concern to this House and my Department, but it is not illegitimate for us to draw our concern to the attention of education authorities.

Boards of Governors

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice her Department offers local education authorities on the composition of school boards of governors.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Most of the advice given in the 1944 memorandum "Principles of Government in Maintained Secondary Schools", which is reproduced on page 102 of "The Law of Education" by Taylor and Saunders, is still valid. No general advice has been given since then, but I welcome the recommendations of the Taylor Committee on this matter and am consulting interested parties about them.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Minister agree that those authorities such as the city of Manchester, which still use their school sub-committees as a kind of omnibus governing body for all schools rather than


using individual governors for schools, are falling below the standards that are currently required?

Miss Jackson: It is a matter for local authorities how they organise these matters. I appreciate that the Taylor Report recommended different constitutions, and we are consulting about them. No doubt Manchester and other authorities will make their views known.

Mr. James Johnson: The barbarian Tory county council of Humberside has changed the composition of all school boards in Hull. Is my hon. Friend aware that it has liquidated the places of all sixth-form pupils, who gave such good advice to people on those boards. I fully understand——

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but will he ask a question?

Mr. Johnson: Will the Department consider issuing some form of circular to local education authorities on this matter?

Miss Jackson: We have asked local education authorities to comment on the Taylor Report proposals, which very much bear on this question. However, I agree that it is not in the education interests of an authority to remove all governors and thus deprive itself of the experience of governing bodies which have given good service for many years.

Dr. Boyson: Will the Minister say when the House will debate the Taylor Report, since we are still awaiting a debate on the Bullock Report, which was put before this House two years ago.

Miss Jackson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to all the points raised from this side of the House on this matter is to take away from counties the powers which they should never have acquired over education and to give back those powers to the cities, from which they should never have been taken?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that my hon. and learned Friend has strong views on this matter, but that aspect of it is

for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

School Management (Parental Involvement)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what practical steps she intends to take to ensure that parents are more closely involved in making decisions in schools attended by their children.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My Department issued on 25th November a circular underlining the importance of providing full and detailed information about schools for all parents. If the parliamentary timetable permits, I also hope to introduce legislation to provide that each school should have its own governing body and that a proportion of the governors should be parents of children at the school, elected by the parents themselves.

Mr. Adley: While welcoming the contents of the circular, I should like to know whether the Secretary of State is aware that many parents are concerned about discipline in schools. Will she ensure that where parental views conflict with those of the educational establishment at any school, in the overall policy of discipline, equal, if not greater, weight will be given to the parents' views?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if there are governors representing the interests of parents on school governing bodies, it will be for them to give their opinions on these matters. It is perhaps particularly in such extra-curricular matters that parents' views can have a special influence.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a far more intelligent policy to put the emphasis on parental involvement in the development of schools rather than to throw emphasis—as the Opposition are so keen to do—solely on the parental choice between schools?

Mrs. Williams: Parental involvement in the government of schools is extremely important because most parents send their children to the nearest school. However, it is worth saying, loud and clear, that this is the first circular ever to have been issued by any Government asking that


parents should receive information about schools. That shows where the authentic concern for parents really lies.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we welcome this circular, which closely follows the recommendations of our parents' charter of 1974—there has been three years' delay, but better late than never—but that there is one glaring omission in it? Does she realise that she has made no request for local education authorities to publish something in which parents are intensely interested, namely, the education records of schools?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education for four years, and during that time no circular about information for parents was issued. Perhaps actions speak louder than words, to quote a famous proverb.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks.

Teaching Certificate

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many men and women are currently obtaining the teaching certificate each year; and if she will make a statement about its future status.

Mr. Oakes: An estimated 4,100 men and 14,500 women will have obtained the non-graduate certificate in the 1976–77 academic year. The numbers have been declining each year since 1971, and this will continue. I told the House on 27th July that the last general entry to the certificate course will be in 1979–80. Its status for present holders and those obtaining it from training begun before then is not affected.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that many unemployed teachers are finding their certificates of little or no use in obtaining employment outside education? Given the time span, is there not a case for phasing out this certificate sooner rather than later?

Mr. Oakes: Many colleges are running courses for such certificates and 1979–80 will he the earliest moment at which they can be phased out.

Mr. Spearing: Are there not dangers in having all graduate recruitment for teachers, particularly if the graduates are recruited almost immmediately from college? How are we to get in schools people whose knowledge of life is sufficiently extensive to provide a reasonable educational background?

Mr. Oakes: There are certain exemptions affecting mature students with specialised qualifications in business studies, music, craft, design and technology, and courses for them will continue until 1983–84.

Parental Choice

Mr. Alan Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to increase parental choice of schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I told the House of my legislative proposals during the debate on the Queen's Speech on 4th November.

Mr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that local and parish councils should continue to appoint a representative to school managing and governing bodies because, as often as not, such councils go out of their way to appoint a parent? Is that not part of the objectives that the Secretary of State is trying to achieve?

Mrs. Williams: The Taylor Report recommended that minor authorities should no longer have the right to nominate governors. I am giving serious consideration to that recommendation, because I am not absolutely certain that the report was right in that matter.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Frank Allun: asked the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev to seek agreement on the proposed five years' moratorium on all nuclear test explosions; and if, as a contribution to the success of the discussions, he will undertake to end unconditionally and henceforth British test explosions at Nevada or elsewhere.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I should be glad to meet Mr. Carter and Mr. Brezhnev if at any time this seemed the best way to advance the tripartite negotiations on a comprehensive test ban.
Any decision to halt nuclear testing while the negotiations are proceeding should be taken by all the participants. A unilateral decision by this country would not improve the prospects of achieving our objective of a permanent treaty banning all nuclear explosions.

Mr. Allaun: What possible advantage can there be to Britain in further tests if the Government do not intend a new generation of nuclear weapons, which they have already renounced? Would not this move help to meet our legal and moral obligations under the non-proliferation treaty?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No" to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. There are technical reasons for continuing the tests—as the United States and the Soviet Union both obviously feel, because they conduct far more tests than we do. Our moral position is certainly in line with that of other countries and I have often repeated to my hon. Friend—although he never accepts it—that Britain's influence in talks is far greater if we are there, because we are involved in the matter, than it would be if we had unilaterally decided to opt out.

Mr. Pattie: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is still Government policy to take all effective measures necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is the reason for carrying out tests.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in testing a weapon unless we are prepared to use it in some circumstances? Will he explain in what circumstances we would be prepared to use it?

The Prime Minister: If one wishes to have a deterrent, it is clearly necessary that it should be known to deter.

Mr. Amery: Will the Prime Minister reinforce the statement made by Chancellor Schmidt to the Institute of Strategic Studies that if the West were to give up

its nuclear weapons it would be in an extremely weak position, in view of the overwhelming conventional forces of the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is increasing its conventional forces, and strategic studies show that it is doing so to a much greater extent than is the West. In relation to strategic nuclear weapons, there is probably a balance of terror on both sides, and for that reason I believe that we can look forward to a period of detente.

BELGRADE

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Belgrade.

The Prime Minister: I have been invited to visit Yugoslavia, and hope to he able to take up the invitation in due course.

Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend goes to Yugoslavia and, in the meantime, through our representatives at the Belgrade Conference, will he confirm that the Government will continue to stand firm in assuring the Soviet authorities that there can be no permanent detente while the Soviet Union continues to trample on human rights, persecute the Jewish minority and humble great Soviet citizens like Academicians Levitch and Sharanski?

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom, in company with other members of the Nine, and on a wider basis in Europe, has made clear its position on the cases. It is that detente will have a fuller meaning when it brings progress on human rights to a much higher level than it has done so far.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Prime Minister's support for the issue of human rights is not in question, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to attend the Belgrade meeting during its time of sitting, will he at least see that our representatives there draw to the attention of the Soviet Union the fact that for monitoring the Helsinki agreement Professor Yuri Orlov has been in detention for nine months without being brought to trial—which is in breach of the Soviet Union's


criminal code? A lawyer from this country has been refused a visa to represent the professor, and observer status has been refused to those of us who wish to attend the trial. Does this not show that the Soviet Union is being totally hypocritical in giving effect to Basket III? Can it be pointed out to the Soviet Union that it cannot expect to receive technical and economic co-operation from the West unless it is prepared to honour the agreement to which President Brezhnev gave his name?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the comments that he made at the beginning of his question. As for the position of individuals, the Belgrade meeting is not a forum in which individual cases can be resolved. They—as I have explained to the House on many occasions—are better resolved in different forums. Belgrade is the arena in which principles and their implementation should be discussed, and it is on those lines that the British representatives are conducting matters.
As to the cases of Mr. Orlov and Mr. Sharanski, who are at the moment held in detention, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Soviet Government are fully aware of the deep concern felt in this country by many citizens about the treatment of these two gentlemen.

Mr. James Lamond: In considering the question of human rights at Belgrade, has my right hon. Friend instructed our representative to raise the question of the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus, which is a sovereign State and a member of the Commonwealth that has been invaded by foreign troops from a country that is a co-signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, and a State in which human rights have been trampled underfoot in the most disgraceful way, resulting in the disappearance of 2,000 Greek Cypriots, 200 of whom have been clearly identified as being in the hands of Turkey but of whom no trace can be found?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain whether the agenda of the Belgrade meeting is meant to cover the discussion of that serious matter, but I shall put my hon. Friend's point to the Foreign Secretary. It would be very helpful if the Turkish Government began discussions with the Greek Cypriots in such a way as

to enable a settlement of this matter to he achieved and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island of Cyprus to be obtained.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Basket III of the Helsinki agreement included the free movement of peoples? Will he make clear to Mr. Brezhnev, privately if he wishes, that until the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the death strip torn up there can be little credibility in the good intentions of the Soviet Government?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet Union is in no doubt of our view on this matter, nor is the Government of the GDR. I took the occasion of the visit of the governing mayor of Berlin last week to make clear publicly where we stand on this matter. We shall give full support to West Berlin in carrying out the quadripartite agreement and ensuring that there is as full a movement as possible between East and West Berlin.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC and the CBI.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

Mr. Molloy: When he met the TUC and the CBI, did my right hon. Friend discuss with them the considerable and remarkable improvement in the British economy? [Interruption.] I know that this improvement is bound to cause irritation to the Conservative Party in its anti-British campaign, which it reveals in this House, in the country and overseas. Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC and the CBI the effects that this improvement could have on wage negotiations and price stabilisation?

The Prime Minister: I constantly point out to trade union conferences and at all my meetings with trade unions that what is happening to inflation and the decrease in the rate of inflation has profound consequences in preserving our competitiveness, preserving jobs and raising the standard of life of our people.


That, together with the tax reductions that are now working through—I believe that some are being paid this week—and the prospects for real growth next year, which are significantly better than for some years, should lead, as my hon. Friend indicated in the last part of his question, to moderation in wage claims and settlements. That is the best way to preserve the prospects for increased growth next year.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House about the unprecedented losses of the British Steel Corporation, which arc now reported to amount to £500 million a year?

The Prime Minister: I answered questions on this subject last week. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry have begun discussions on these matters, and when they are brought to a conclusion a report will be made to the House.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that it is no part of his strategy to use the revenue from North Sea oil to keep going wealth-consuming jobs rather than allow the revenue to be used to generate wealth-creating jobs?

The Prime Minister: As a general proposition, that is wholly unexceptionable, but I take it that the right hon. Lady is not suggesting that because of the world recession we should allow the British steel industry to collapse.

Mr. David Steel: In future meetings with the TUC and CBI—[Interruption.]—will the Prime Minister continue to lay stress on the importance of the 10 per cent. guideline? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.

Mr. Steel: I am asking a perfectly serious question about the importance of adhering to the 10 per cent. guideline. Did the Prime Minister maintain that in his meeting with the Fire Brigades Union this morning? If so, what sort of response did he get?

The Prime Minister: If the House will forgive me, I do not wish to go into the details of my discussions with the FBU

this morning. I set out my view very fully and they fully understand the position of the Government. In my view there is no doubt that the firemen have a substantial case for determining a long-term formula which will fix their position. I have indicated this to them and have also tried to indicate to them—without giving any positive assurances, because we were not negotiating—that I would see whether we could underwrite such a long-term agreement if one were reached. But it is not possible for the Government in present circumstances to depart from the 10 per cent. guideline. We are not fighting the firemen; I am fighting for the overall objective of keeping inflation down and jobs up.

Mrs. Castle: Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that the Government will underwrite the firemen's long-term pay formula to the same extent that they have undertaken to underwrite the findings of the independent inquiry into the police?

The Prime Minister: There have been no undertakings given on either count. I should prefer not to be pressed on this matter when negotiations are being conducted. They are not best conducted across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Prior: When the Prime Minister next meets Mr. Jack Jones and the TUC, will he tell Mr. Jones and the Transport and General Workers Union what sanctions he thinks the Government should apply to them for giving themselves increases of more than 10 per cent?

The Prime Minister: I am not acquainted with what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, I am sure that he will get an adequate reply.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 29th November.

The Prime Minister: This morning I met at their request the Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall


be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be attending a reception given by the United Kingdom Pilots Association and this evening I shall be addressing the Institution of Production Engineers at its annual dinner.

Mr. MacKay: During his busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to confirm the fascinating report in The Times today that states that when the Prime Minister met the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party yesterday he remonstrated with it and told its members that they owed their position in this place to the Liberal Party? Is not the reality that the Liberal Party owes its existence to the continuance of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I shall find time to read the "fascinating reports", to use the hon. Gentleman's words. I agree that they are fascinating. Sometimes it is much more fascinating to read the reports than to be present at the meetings.

Mr. Bidwell: Did my right hon. Friend contact the Indian Government yesterday, or will he do so today or tomorrow, about the devastation and loss of human life that has been taking place in India? Has British aid been offered? If so, what form is it taking?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Last Tuesday Prime Minister Desai and I spoke on the telephone about that and other matters. On that day, when the reports were coming through, I at once offered any assistance that the High Commission in Delhi could give him. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has offered help, and some has been dispatched. I understood from Prime Minister Desai that the Indian Government hope to be

able to handle the grave problem themselves, but I am sure that the House would have allowed me, as I did, to express on its behalf, and on behalf of everyone, our sympathy and our regret that such distress has been caused.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Prime Minister recall that in the counter-inflation statement that he made on 20th July, when we were to enter into the consensus society under his Government, I asked him what would happen if one party did not consent. I asked him whether his Government would confront or surrender, and he replied "Neither". Did he by any chance mean "Both"?

The Prime Minister: No. As usual, I meant what I said. We are not in a position of confrontation at the moment. Certainly the firemen do not think that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have met their executive and hon. Members have not. The firemen recognise very well the dilemma in which the country is now plunged, when there is a great deal of sympathy for the firemen's case but, on the other hand, an understanding that in a structured wage system such as we have, that which is given to one goes through the whole system, and that that cannot be permitted.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

David Anthony Atkinson, Esq., for Bournemouth, East.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS,&amp;c.

Ordered,
That the Goods Vehicle Operators (Qualifications) Regulations 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1462) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

3RD ALLOTTED DAY

Considered in Committee.

[Progress, 23rd November]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you fairly reasonable notice. I say at once that it concerns tomorrow's business. None the less, it is a serious matter and I believe it courteous to raise it now. The purpose of the point of order is to request the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate when we debate the clause on judicial review by the Judicial Committee of the Pricy Council and to ask that they make to the House of Commons an objective statement of the view of the judges of the Judicial Committee.
It may be within the recollection of some hon. Members who assiduously have followed our discussions on the Bill that on Monday 14th November 1977 I asked the Government:
Have the Judicial Committee or the judges been consulted and what is the Judicial Committee's view of the task which has been handed to it? Is it up to the Judicial Committee to decide what might seem at one level to be pure questions of law but what at many other levels may he thought to be the most delicate issues of political decision? What do the judges themselves think about it?"—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 938, c. 124.]
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, replied:
there was very little criticism about the control mechanisms, the override provisions, or the use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to deal with questions of vires. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked about this. The use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is restricted to the matter of the vires of Bills. It is very important to have a legal solution for that problem.
To those who say that the. Scottish Assembly will acquire powers, I reply that it cannot acquire powers that tins Parliament has not given it. The United Kingdom Government can put the matter before: he Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose decision

will be binding upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been consulted. We have ensured that the Judicial Committee and the courts' administrations generally have been informed about the proposals which concern them".—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 938, c. 196–197.]
I wrote to the Library about this subject and I quote its final answer, which states:
You asked whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had ever been consulted on its planned role as final court of reference on devolution issues and, if so, what view was taken.
The letter continues, Mrs. Rosamund Coates writing for the Library:
I know of no published source on this question and I therefore spoke to the Registrar of the Judicial Committee. He pointed out that the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary and senior presiding judge of the Judicial Committee, would, in his capacity as Cabinet Minister, have considered the devolution Bills together with other Ministers and would have had the same opportunities to state his views. Not surprisingly the Registrar was not prepared to indicate what the Lord Chancellor's views might have been.
To say that the Judicial Committee has been involved is one thing, but what it has commented in reply and what the reply of the judges of the Committee has been may be something totally different.
I submit that the gravest issues are involved. No one knows that better than my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council after all those eloquent and ferocious speeches about Sir John Donaldson's rôle in politics as a judge of the High Court. It is to my right hon. Friend that we are indebted for the wonderful phrase "the flap-doodle above the framework of the law".
My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows very well that there are delicate issues involved. For my part I do not think it is true that one can, even if one wants to, confine the rôle of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council purely to questions of law. For example, if an Act of the Assembly had been passed as intra vires by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will it still be open to the citizen to challenge the vires of the Assembly Act in a litigation in which his rights are involved in relation to an Assembly Act? Alternatively, is a private citizen who deems himself to be affected by an Act of the Assembly able to say


"I am going to court because I say that what the Assembly has done is ultra vires"?

The Chairman: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to come to the point with which he considers the occupant of the Chair should deal?

Mr. Dalyell: The tradition of Scottish law is built on practical cases. Does not this Bill introduce a potential for legal decisions based on in avente hypothetical cases? If so, what is to be the appeal position? Do civil cases go to the House of Lords and do criminal cases go on appeal to the High Court of Judiciary?
I am sure that no one doubts that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is an extremely able lawyer. That is my opinion of him and it has been for many years. However, I urge that through the usual channels the Attorney-General be asked to make a statement to the House on this type of issue with the full authority of the Lord Chancellor, because the Attorney-General represents the Lord Chancellor in the House. It is the Lord Chancellor to whom the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reports. This issue should be dealt with by the Law Officers of the Crown speaking with the full sought-out authority of expert advisers and the Lord Chancellor.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me prior notice of his point of order. He will understand the reply which I shall give. This is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair has no control over the movement of Ministers. The other details which he raised are matters for argument during the course of the debate.

Clause 18

SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY ACTS

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 94 in page 7, line 33, at end insert
which has not been passed prior to the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly being held as laid down by section (7) of this Act

The Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 95, in page 7, line 33, at end insert

but such amendment or repeal shall have effect only after a draft has been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".

Mr. Griffiths: In these amendments and in this clause we are coming to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the objections that many of us on all sides of the House feel towards it. Above all we are dealing with the legislative provisions of the Bill which, more than any others, create implications for the unity of the United Kingdom and for the supreme authority of Parliament. Indeed, I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will recall Clause 1 which has been struck out of the Bill, which stated precisely that nothing in the Bill shall
affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament".
The amendments are intended to make clear beyond peradventure what the Government have maintained throughout—namely, that there is nothing in fact or in constitutional doctrine that will impair the supreme authority of this Parliament. My amendments are designed to achieve that.
I wish to put three general points to the Minister of State. First, if the Scottish Assembly, as this clause maintains, is to have power to repeal Acts of Parliament within the areas of its competence, it must be regarded as a parallel and in some ways as a rival authority to this place. That cannot be gainsaid because under the Bill the Assembly could pass an Act and this Parliament could pass an Act to reverse the Assembly Act. But then the Assembly could repeal that Act of Parliament which reversed the Assembly's original decision.
I am advised that that is precisely the position. The Scottish Assembly passes a Bill within the area of its competence, and this House, on the advice of the Secretary of State, concludes that that Bill should not stand—for various reasons of national policy, not because it is extra vires. This House can then pass an Act to overcome that Scottish Bill. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Assembly from then using its powers to repeal that Act of Parliament. That illustrates the absurdity of creating a rival authority that is capable of repealing Acts of this House which in turn may illegitimate some action of the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. James Sillars: Could not this Parliament then repeal the repealing Act?

Mr. Griffiths: Indeed it could. We could have a ping-pong game between Westminster and Edinburgh. This is exactly what we all, including the Minister of State, wish to avoid. It cannot be right to create a situation where either Assembly is put in a position of repealing or repassing each other's Acts.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the hon. Member impales himself too firmly on the horns of a dilemma, I must say to him that if this Parliament wished to repeal an Act of the Scottish Assembly it could entrench the position and ensure that it could not happen again.

Mr. Griffiths: Let us put such a provision into the Bill. The Minister is illustrating that he has not thought of this. Let him accept the amendments because they would achieve his purpose. Unless these amendments, or something like them, are accepted, the purpose of the late and unlamented Clause 1 will not be achieved and the supreme authority of this place will be in doubt.
My second point is that throughout the debates that we shall have on these amendments and on this clause, we shall be dealing with the generation of legislative powers. It is the granting of legislative powers, not of executive powers, that raises the whole issue of the number and the rôle of Scottish and Welsh MPs. It raises the West Lothian question—and I pay tribute once again to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
No longer will Parliament be legislating for Scotland. Scottish MPs will be able to vote on matters that concern England but not when they concern Scotland. If executive powers alone were to be devolved, the Secretary of State would be as answerable to the House as is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the way in which local authorities operate their powers. It would not be quite the same but it would not be very different.
The granting of legislative power is separate. It is through that grant of legislative power that the executive will be able to act in totally new ways in the devolved sphere. From that devolution

of legislative powers would flow the danger of creating totally new and divergent policies. It is this principle behind the devolution of legislative power that is important rather than the actual effect of the handover of power. After all, in regard to many of these areas which are being devolved from time to time, Parliament is already leaving legislation to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. John Smith: No.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute this, perhaps he would be interested in some figures. I would be very happy to give them to the Scottish nationalists. The figures might even help the Minister of State, who needs all the help that he can get.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is in much more need of help than I am if he thinks that the Scottish Grand Committee legislates.

Mr. Griffiths: I did not say that. I said that Parliament leaves the practice of legislation to the Scottish Grand Committee. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, may I be allowed to say something about it, since I did once serve on the Scottish Grand Committee? There was a time, when I first came to the House, when it was difficult to fill the Scottish Grand Committee with enough English Conservative Members, and I did my apprenticeship there.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No, because I think that the hon. Gentleman might listen before he objects. Between June 1970 and March 1977 the Scottish Grand Committee took the Second Reading of 22 Bills. Four Bills were not referred to the Committee because the House of Commons objected on two of the four occasions, for quite technical reasons. Nineteen Scottish Bills were at the same time taken on the Floor of the House, though in the case of only five was there any Division on Second Reading. This demonstrates that I was correct in saying that Parliament leaves the task of this type of legislation—much of it non-contentious—to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. MacCormick: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting confused. For


a start, does the hon. Member not appreciate that so far as the Scottish Grand Committee is concerned the votes are taken on the Floor of the House? To that extent, we cannot be said to be legislating.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is confused even further. In Scotland the main argument of the Conservative Party against the Scotland Bill is, oddly, that it means that Scottish Members will be able to vote on English matters. Yet the hon. Member has pointed out that English Members serve on the Scottish Grand Committee and vote on Scottish matters.

Mr. Griffiths: This has been and is, rightly, the position in the Scottish Grand Committee, but it will cease to be so once this devolution measure goes through.
The point that I am making—the hon. Gentleman is very assiduous in these matters—is that it is the devolution of legislative power, not so much executive power, that creates the new situation. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to see a total devolution or a total suppression of these powers. I want to see the opposite. The act of devolving legislative power from this House is the heart of the matter. Executive power can be and is controlled, for example, in the case of the county councils.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the distinction. It is not, with great respect, the case that the Secretary of State is responsible for executive decisions which are within the sphere of local government. The point is that there is local government everywhere and, therefore, all Members of the House are in the same position in regard to their responsibilities for matters which have been executively devolved to local government.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on this matter, but I proceed with the main point that I am making. What distinguishes this Bill, and what will create the difficulty, is devolution from this House of the ability to legislate to the Scottish Assembly. It is to that that I am objecting, and it is that which the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) wishes to see.

Mr. John Smith: Before we leave this. reference to the Scottish Grand Com-

mittee, would the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) not agree that all that happens is that the Second Reading of certain Bills, provided 12 Members do not object, is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Scottish Standing Committee does the Committee stages of Scottish Bills but those Bills have to come back for Report and Third Reading to the Floor of this House? It is a gross misrepresentation of the present situation to say that the Scottish Grand Committee, or any other Committee, thereby legislates.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister of State describes it quite accurately, but I do not think that he is disagreeing with my principal point. At the moment we leave to the Scottish Grand Committee the responsibilities for dealing with a lot of those matters in detail. That is right. We achieved it within the Westminster Parliament. But the difference is that, if this Bill were to be passed without my amendments, a new situation would arise in which we no longer had a Scottish Grand Committee doing a job on behalf of the House and, quite fairly, reporting back to it for decision. From the start of separation of this House we have something quite new. We have a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers and, as far as I can make out, the ability to oppose or repeal other Acts of Parliament of this House through its own separate legislative competence.
That is the heart of the matter. I am sorry that the Minister of State has misunderstood my point. I am saying that at the moment we achieve a degree of delegation of legislative functions to the Grand Committee, responsible to us, which is our normal procedure. In the case of this Bill, we shall be creating a new creature with separate legislative powers.
The third general point is that, in the procedures of this Bill, if I read them correctly, Scotland, at a stroke—if I may use that phrase—would be converted to a single-chamber system of government. There would be no procedure to iron out faults in its Bills, and we would—almost by sleight of hand, as this has not been fully canvassed with public opinion—be removing for all time the functions of the House of Lords from the very wide areas for which the Scottish Parliament henceforth will be responsible.
We should be removing for all time the competence of the House of Lords to give scrutiny to the Bills which concern a very wide range of matters to be devolved, and that general point needs to be brought out.
My last general point is simply about the technical question of repeal. The question is whether Parliament can repeal for ever an Act that is passed by the Assembly. Even if Clause 1, or the part of it referring to Parliament's powers
to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it",
were to be restored, Clause 18(2) says clearly:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
So even if Parliament passed an Act to reverse an Act of the Scottish Assembly, as I read the Bill the Assembly could then reverse that Act. There is nothing in the Bill that makes that point clear, and it is therefore necessary to introduce amendments of this kind.
I turn now to the detail. Let us take for example the retrospection position. Supposing the Assembly were to decide that it wished to change, repeal or alter some Act of this Parliament already on the statute book in respect of Scottish education or local government, or something of the sort. It would by that Act be creating an entirely new situation within Scotland. It may well be that that is what the Minister visualises.
I give an example—the Zetland County Council Act, covering the Shetland Islands. There were not, it must be said, very extensive debates on that legislation when it came to this House, and I have to confess that, until such time as I was recently privileged to go to Shetland, I had not appreciated the significance of the Act for the Shetland Islands or, through the Shetland Islands, for the whole country because of the special significance of the Shetlands in respect of the landing of oil. But there is no doubt that it is a local government Act and that it would fall within the competence of the Assembly.

Mr. John Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he tells me that it

is not a local government Act and would not fall within the competence of the Assembly, that might curtail my remarks. It would be a considerable "plus" if we were told that that Act was immune from action by the Assembly.

Mr. John Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Press, he will see that I have written to the Chief Executive of Shetland County Council answering some of these points, which were made to me by members of the delegation which came to see me. This is a long and complicated matter. The hon. Gentleman should remember that neither energy nor ports is to be devolved. That is an important factor to take into account.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: I was aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter, although I have not studied it. But, with great respect to him, it is one thing for him to write a letter—and I am glad that he has done so—and an entirely different thing to leave an Act of Parliament open on this question. My understanding is that, although the oil and the financial aspects are not devolved powers, the reality of the Zetland County Council Act is that it confers by way of the local government machine particular powers to the council which are unique, and since they are local government powers—and I speak as one who had some responsibility for local government for some time—I do not believe that any letter that the hon. Gentleman writes can take away what Parliament gave to the Shetland County Council by Act of this House.
It cannot be right that the Scottish Assembly, once it is set up, because it has authority over local government, should be able to reach back into the past and amend, repeal or modify in any way an Act of this House which, in respect of the Shetlands, conferred particular powers in respect of planning and of the attracting and build-up of a fund which will be used to assist the pastoral, fishing and other industries of the Shetlands for the future, and which also creates in the Shetlands a particular system of local government which is quite different, because it is a single-tier authority, from the rest of this country.
There precisely is one example—and there are many others—where, if these

amendments are not accepted, the Scottish Assembly will have the retrospective power to reach back into the past and change fundamental Acts of this House in respect of certain areas—namely, the Shetlands. I think that it cannot be right for it to be able to do so.

Mr. MacCormick: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of whether the Assembly would have power to deal with the special position of the Shetlands. What guarantee have the Shetlanders that this House would regard that Act as entrenched?

Mr. Griffiths: The Shetlands have no right to seek to bind the omnicompetence of this House. This House is sovereign—and the hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. The difference is that, for the first time, we shall have removed the omnicompetence of this House to determine what shall happen in any part of the United Kingdom—in this instance, the Shetlands—and we shall be devolving that power on to another body, the Scottish Assembly, which, as I read the Bill, would be capable of altering, amending, repealing or modifying that fundamental Act of this House in respect of the Shetland Islands. That is a power that ought not to be conferred on a parallel or rival body. That is precisely why Amendment No. 95 has been put down, for it would make that impossible without further action on the part of this House. That is an example of the retrospective action which could be taken and which I believe ought to be prevented.

Mr. MacCormick: Surely there is no way that one can say that that would be retrospective action, any more than it world be retrospective of this House to repeal an Act existing now.

Mr. Griffiths: It would be a case of reaching back into the past and altering an Act of this House, and the alteration would he made by some other body. In my view, that is retrospection.
I want now to deal with a more serious matter, the future effect of the Scottish Assembly being able to amend or repeal an Act of this House. Manifestly. as the Minister will no doubt point out, the Assembly can only repeal Acts Acts of this House or amend within the areas of its competence. I am aware of

the rather complicated procedures—one looks at the next clause, which refers one to the schedule, which sets out in detail what are the areas where the Assembly is not supposed to treat. For example, there is the question of what is to happen for the future.
I think that for the sake of clarity and brevity I should give two examples which divide the two sides of the House. Let us suppose that a Conservative Government with a sizeable majority was returned to Westminster and that the Administration, exercising their powers as the Westminster Parliament, were massively to extend the frontiers of private health care and private education, thus, in the eyes of Labour Members, reducing the extent of public provision in these two areas. Surely it should be within the supreme authority of the British Parliament to extend those decisions to Scotland. It would be quite intolerable if, given the supreme authority of this place under the Government's Bill, they were then prevented from exercising that authority in Scotland.
Let me take the reverse. Let us suppose that a strong Labour Government were returned to Westminster and that they set out to abolish private health care and private education, as one day they might seek to do. It would be within the supreme authority of this Parliament to do that. But are we then to be told that this House could be prevented by the Bill from extending such statutes to Scotland, and that if it attempted to do so the Scottish Assembly, which might have a Conservative majority, could then repeal such statutes?
The Minister must tell us whether this House will have the ability to extend its decisions to Scotland, given that the Scottish Assembly might have a different political majority from Westminster and given that as the Bill stands the Assembly could simply repeal the Westminster Act. This is a fundamental issue. It would create tension between Westminster and Edinburgh, and I am concerned about that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be condemning himself out of his own mouth with the Big Brother attitude that he is adopting. Does he recognise that Scottish education, to take just one example, has


always been dealt with separately under the existing unitary arrangements? In that case would it not be right and proper for the Scottish electorate, who arc consumers of the education system, to have the right to decide what educational structure should exist in Scotland?

Mr. Griffiths: I go a long way with the hon. Member. I strongly believe in the delegation and devolution of powers from one part of the United Kingdom to another. But I am concerned here with the powers of the British Parliament. As the Bill stands, unless these amendments are made or something to their effect is carried out, the position is clear. The United Kingdom Parliament could take decisions about health, education, local government and other matters, but as the Bill stands the Scottish Assembly could then repeal, modify or alter the decisions of the House. That could not he right under a unitary system.
I can imagine many situations in which the Westminster Government might consider it to be in the national interest to extend legislation to Scotland. This might be based on reasons connected with the balance of payments, with the European Community, or with international or domestic political matters. If this House decided to change the educational system on, for example, comprehensives or standards in schools, or to change the health system in terms of the financing or staffing of the hospital system, it would be logical to extend the changes to every part of the United Kingdom.
I accept that the Scottish nationalists want out altogether. I do not. If the Minister of State believes in what he said in the debates on Clause 1, and if he believes in the language of the next clause and the schedule that this Parliament shall retain its supreme authority, he should provide in the Bill, first, that the Scottish Assembly shall not be able to repeal or amend Acts of this House. Secondly, he should provide that there will not be a ping-pong match—it might be something much more severe than that—back and forth between Westminster and the Edinburgh Assembly. Thirdly, he should provide that in any event—here I turn to Amendment No. 95—before there is any amendment by the

Assembly of an Act of this House, a draft of that proposed amendment or repeal should be laid before this House so that hon. Members could consider it, and that it should be effective only if there were an affirmative resolution of each House in favour of it.
Labour Members may well take the view—since they have a different attitude to the other place from me—that it would be sufficient for an affirmative order sustaining the Scottish repeal of our legislation to be carried by this House alone. I would not agree with that, although I would not quarrel with it if that were their view. What is important, however, is that if a majority Government at Westminster wish to apply to Scotland measures relating to education, health or local government, it should not be open to the Scottish Assembly to scrap any Act without that proposition having been laid in draft before this House for consideration of the implications for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Dalyell: If we are searching for a sporting metaphor in reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I suggest that the sport should be boxing, karate, judo, or one of the more violent sports. It should not be ping-pong.
I wish to return to the question of the Shetland letter. I asked in the Library this morning, as others may have done, for a copy of the letter, but it was not forthcoming. I do not rebuke the Minister of State for that, but I repeat the suggestion that I put to Ministers before the debates began. We are entitled to ask for it because both in public and in private I have said that the deficiencies of the Bill have nothing to do with bad drafting or sloppy presentation, and that the Scotland and Wales Bills are the work of able Ministers and clever and conscientious civil servants doing almost the best possible job from their point of view.

Mr. John Smith: In case there is any misunderstanding about the letter, let me explain that the Library asked my office to provide it for the Library, and that it was immediately provided.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked for it this morning. That is all I can report.
In the circumstances of a guillotine on a constitutional measure, may I suggest


that if a Question is asked in the House the Member asking it has certain rights. He has the right, first, to a reply within 24 hours simply saying whether the Front Bench considers it worthy of serious answer. Secondly, he has the right to know whether it is irrelevant; thirdly, whether it would be unduly costly to answer; and, fourthly, whether it is unanswerable. If it is considered worthy of serious answer, there should be a reply within a week and a copy of the reply should be placed in the Library for all hon. Members to see, with another copy put on tile for the Press Gallery. It seems that that would be an orderly way of setting about these difficult matters.
4.15 p.m.
In the past couple of weeks, when I have been voting from time to time—not, in my view, in the Conservative Lobby, nor for any Conservative amendments, which I opposed, but against my own Government—I have been asked with varying degrees of tact and politeness "What is different about you?" The truth is that there is only one thing different about me. It is that ever since May 1962, three weeks before polling day in the by-election in West Lothian, I have had an SNP candidate as my chief opponent, so I have had 15 years of contention, not three, as most of my hon. Friends have had. This focuses the mind wonderfully on what the SNP is all about and what gives it electoral success.
This brings me directly to Clauses 18 and 19, and the observation, born out of a decade and a half's experience, that SNP electoral success does not come from a desire for more laws, further legislation or even, on the whole, for different laws. Let no English Member of Parliament imagine that the Scots are thirsty for a string of Acts from a Scottish Assembly or that they want a basinful of Scottish legislation from a devoluted Parliament with the hallmark "Made at the Royal High School" stamped all over it. or that this will quench the thirst of the SNP stalwarts and romantics who want a separate State.
These things are a little difficult to prove, and I will explain why In the summer of 1969 I undertook for the late Dick Crossman a survey of 1,000 homes in my constituency on attitudes

towards a contracting-out scheme to try to obtain more kidneys for transplants. I spent 42 days doing this and received a lot of relevant comment. In 1976 I decided to do roughly the same thing on devolution. In contrast to my experience seven years earlier I was met on that occasion with polite amazement on the doorstep. The same people who were perfectly prepared to talk to me about the destination of their kidneys were not nearly so forthcoming on devolution. I must say to my hon. Friend the Government Whip that I was second in the Ballot for this Friday for Private Member's business, and I shall be raising the question of kidney donors, not devolution, for which Government Ministers will be grateful.
The people I met were not forthcoming on devolution. Sometimes I was asked to explain what it was all about, but more often I was met with remarks of "An Assembly? Devolution?" and slightly embarrassed wonderment. But they added "While you are here, you are just the man I want to see about my drains. my fence and my tax problems at Centre One at East Kilbride. Why are they charging me too much income tax?" My survey ended in despair of getting a cross-section of my constituents to talk to me properly about devolution. They would certainly talk about many other subjects, but not about devolution. Tinkering with the constitution, though it may lead to a separate Scottish State, will not dissuade those who are minded to vote for the Scottish National Party.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the late Richard Crossman. Has his attention been drawn to Mr. Crossman's expression of the philosophy of nationalism? He said:
It is a concomitant of a nation—an essential of freedom.
That is on page 193 of his book "Planning for Freedom".

Mr. Dalyell: That is another instance of where the late Dick Crossman, whom I admired greatly, was wrong.
It is true that Scottish Members do receive complaints, almost always from those directly affected about, for example, the difference between Scottish and English divorce laws or between Scottish and


English licensing laws. If any hon. Member answered a complaining constituent by saying that there was not enough parliamentary time to do what he or she wanted done, such an answer would be palpably an excuse and not a reason.
The reason why the change in the Scottish licensing laws took so long to achieve is that there were deeply held convictions, and diametrically opposed convictions, among Scottish Members of Parliament themselves. It is wrong to blame either the English or the Westminster system for that, and anyone who did so would be taking an easy way out.
A lot of people say that there is a great need for reform of Scottish law. What is less clear is that there is great agreement on how Scottish law should be reformed. Once a consensus is achieved on what to do, Westminster will present few hurdles to its being done. For example, as the Minister of State knows, I should like to see the law on stated case procedure in relation to police officers altered. The stumbling block is not Westminster. It is diverse opinions among Scottish lawyers ——

The Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great admiration for the way in which he pursues these matters in this Committee, but I must put it to him that he is going rather wide of the amendments before us, which deal with a rather narrow point.

Mr. Dalyell: I am centring home on the guts of the issue, Mr. Murton. One can play musical chairs with laws, but changing laws without cost will not satisfy those whose expectations have been aroused by Assembly candidates.
How many people come to our surgeries saying "We want an alteration to Section 34(3)(V)(e) of the Rent Act"? What they say is "We want our house repaired more quickly." Such laws as the Scottish Assembly will want to pass will certainly cost more money.
This is where we come back to the subjects raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The grievances, real or imagined, of people in Scotland are seldom related to a shortage of laws or too little legislation. On the contrary, I am sure that the voters of all parties in West Lothian are convinced that there are

too many laws already—certainly not too few. Yet here we are in the House of Commons solemnly passing laws to set up a subordinate Parliament which will churn out yet more laws. If the 150 Assembly persons in that subordinate Parliament fail to churn out more laws, how on earth will they justify themselves and their salaries?
We come back, therefore, to the situation posed by Clauses 18 and 19. What will happen is obvious. First, to fill up its time, the Assembly will meddle with local government, with hospital boards, with universities and any other body or thing on which it can try to get its clutches. That is one possibility.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: A Second Reading point.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not entirely a Second Reading point. What we are discussing is the production of legislation, a legislation factory. Second, since it cannot take up all its time in meddling with the local authorities and so on, it will do something else, and that will be squabbling with London. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds called it ping-pong. We need not use too many sporting metaphors, but this will be an increasingly sour and uneasy relationship.
Clauses 18 and 19 do not provide the occasion to say too much about local government, but I must refer here to the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)—whom we miss so much in these debates—in the Sunday Mail to the effect that he would abolish the regions. That is meddling with local government. Incidentally, we do not make any decision more local by abolishing the regions. This means either centralisation in Edinburgh or 50 to 60 all-purpose local authorities.
I put it solemnly and seriously to the Committee that people like me are the best devolvers of decision making of the lot. It is just that we are not quite so good at the jargon as some hon. Members are. We really believe in local government. The regions are more local than an Assembly in Edinburgh could be, and they are settling down, beginning to be a success and beginning to work. Of course, they had teething troubles. But the idea of those who think as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian does, that one can wave a wand and do


away with the regions, is nonsense. The cost is mind-boggling, and in any case it has nothing to do with bringing decision making more locally to those who are affected by the decisions, and to claim that an Assembly in Edinburgh will bring government closer to the people is sheer cant.
I shall not go into what was said in the Sunday Mail—I leave that to my hon. Friend—but there would in practice be fruitful argument about competences. Any meaningful Housing Act in Scotland would need, or be thought to need, more than a Scottish share of the national cake. I refer at this point to what was said at one point in his speech on 22nd November by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison):
I imagine that in Scotland, as in England, in an election campaign not merely great national matters are raised but one is asked about local issues. People ask 'What will you do to get a hospital here? What will you do to get a road here, or to improve the schools in this area?' Scottish candidates will have to say 'I am sorry, but these powers have been taken away from us by our own decision and handed to an Assembly in Scotland.' Are they happy in their hearts about what they will be voting for?
At that point, I asked the hon. Gentleman to give way, and he responded in these terms:
I am sure that I should quite agree with what the hon. Member for West Lothian is about to say, but because of the guillotine I must press on."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1344–5.]
I must tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that it is not true that Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster would be expected to do nothing about it. The hon. Gentleman's understanding is incomplete to the point of being wrong. If we said that we had nothing to do with housing, back would come the answer "But it has a great deal to do with housing and to do with you." People would say that it is our job to extract more money from the English for the Assemblymen who cannot honour promises.
The truth is that, in the eyes of many people our main task as 71 Scottish Members of Parliament, mongrel Members—I repeat the phrase "mongrel Members of the House of Commons", for that is what we should be—would be to come here to extract cash from the Treasury in England for the Assembly.

That would be our major responsibility. This is a situation which could not possibly endure, and there would in fact be endless arguments about powers.
Returning directly to Clause 18, I shall now quote from a letter sent to me by a young——

The Chairman: Order. The Chair has been very tolerant, but I should be grateful if the hon. Member, as well as referring to Clause 18, would refer to the amendments which we are discussing.

Mr. Dalyell: It is directly related to the amendment, Mr. Murton, and the passage is very short. Mr. Brian Fairley, of the West Lothian Constituency Labour Party, did me the kindness of reading a book which I wrote, and he put a point to me in these terms:
On page 27, paragraph 1, regarding the budget proposals for the Assembly, you make an important point regarding overspending. However, you may have missed a more important point, that is, could the Assembly deliberately overspend in order to have the block grant increased?
This clever young man says:
Supposing you have a Labour-controlled Assembly and a Tory Parliament. The Tories order cuts in expenditure, and the grant is cut accordingly. The Labour Assembly then deliberately sanctions finance for massive housing developments all over Scotland. Then the Assembly tells Parliament that unless the grant is increased the health service in Scotland will collapse due to lack of finance.
All I can say is that we have very perceptive young Socialists in the West Lothian constituency. That is a basic point which at some stage will have to be answered.
We come back once more to the argument that we cannot have a subordinate Parliament in part, and only part, of a unitary State. The leader writer of the Glasgow Herald may think that this Bill is starting off a great democratic adventure. I will concede that no one else has tried this particular experiment. Why?—because people have coolly thought about it and realised that it is bound to fail, and Clauses 18 and 19 epitomise some of the basic reasons why it is bound to end up as something very different from that which my hon. Friends intended.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I rise merely to tell the Committee that in our view the amendments


raise profound matters at the absolute centre of the Government's scheme for devolution, but matters that can be dealt with most effectively by Amendment No. 247. Although I agree in large part with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I do not wish to take the time of the Committee, in view of the extremely curtailed guillotine procedure under which we are operating and suffering, by expanding on the issue. If I catch the eye of the Chair I hope to give my views when we debate Amendment No. 247.

Mr. J. Grimond: Whatever may be thought about the amendments in general, the question of Shetland has been raised on them, and I feel bound to say few words about it.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will no doubt explain the effect of Clauses 18 and 19, but it seems to me that one answer to the fears of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is that Clause 18 is subject to Clause 19. Clause 18 begins:
Subject to section 19 of this Act, the Assembly may make laws".
But that is only subject to Section 19, which says:
A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
Subject to what the Minister says, I believe that that rules out much ping-pong.
Although I hope later to make a longer speech about what I take to be the views of my constituents in Shetland—not necessarily only those of the Shetland Island Council, but, as I understand them, the varying views of the Shetlanders—it might be useful at this stage to clear up one or two points. First, there are two Acts of importance to Shetland. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned both, but I am not sure that he clearly distinguished between them.
There is the Act by which the Shetland Island Council was created. That was part of the general change of local government in Scotland. It is true that that Act can be amended or revoked by this Parliament or the Assembly. It is true that no Parliament and no Assembly—

indeed, no local authority—can bind its successor. It may be that in the course of time the Shetland Island Council itself will wish to have new powers, and if so it will be entitled to ask for them. But at present, as far as I know, no party proposes to diminish the Council's powers in any way—certainly not the Liberal Party, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Scottish National Party. Therefore, at any rate for the time being, it is a fairly remote possibility. I suppose that it is possible that Plaid Cymru might suddenly come forward with drastic proposals, but, short of that, it is a bogy which need not worry us too desperately.
The other Act is the Zetland County Council Act, giving the Council certain powers in relation to oil and related matters. I must tell the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that it is untrue that the Act has not been considered. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) objected to it, quite properly. As a result of his objections, we had a prolonged debate in the House. The measure was then, again quite properly, debated further in the House and examined for no less than a fortnight in Edinburgh. A Committee of the House travelled to Shetland to look into the whole matter. It is not true that we have had no opportunity of finding out what the Act says. It gave the Zetland County Council originally, and now the Island Council, certain powers in regard to oil and harbours.

Mr. Dalyell: To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that I objected to the measure because that was the only procedure by which that important matter could be debated in the House. My only reason for objecting was that I thought that it should be debated.

Mr. Grimond: That is only partially the true story. The hon. Gentleman was got at by one of the principal opponents of the measure in Shetland and took up the matter at his behest. However, I do not intend to go on about this. The hon. Gentleman had the right to have the measure debated here, and he had it debated. It is not true to say that it was not debated in the House, because it was debated here and in Edinburgh and Shetland

Mr. Dalyell: I am not normally got at. I am only persuaded. Can the right hon. Gentleman remind me who got at me? I have honestly forgotten if anybody got at me.

Mr. Grimond: I do not object to what happened, because it is part of the parliamentary procedure, but the fact is that the hon. Gentleman objected to the measure and it was debated here. I took part in the debate at some length.
The Act deals with oil and harbours, matters which are not devolved in the Bill. The Minister of State has written a letter, and I want to get its status clear, because it will be referred to again in these debates. As I understand it, it gives no new pledge on behalf of the Government but gives the hon. Gentleman's opinion as a Minister in charge of the Bill, and as a distinguished Scots lawyer, about the effect of that Act and various other Acts which were raised with him when I went with some members of the Shetland Island Council to see him.
We shall possibly debate all those matters when we come to later amendments, but it is important to say that we do not depend on that letter. What we depend upon is whether we think that the letter is a true description of the Act. So far no one has said that it is not.
I propose to leave the matter there, but I wish to make it clear that there are two Acts which may come up in our debates, and that the second, dealing with oil and harbours, concerns matters that are not devolved. One of the points of importance to Shetland is the protection of the funds built up from oil revenues. Important as those funds are—and they are very important—they will not make good the destruction of sea fishing, crofting and the knitwear industry in Shetland. That has nothing to do with the Bill. It has to do with the impact of oil upon the economy. It is important that the House should realise that Shetland is being greatly affected, for good and bad, by oil and that that is to a large extent an issue separate from the Bill.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I never cease to be amazed by, and to admire, the ingenuity of hon. Members, with their ability to work into the Committee stage of a Bill discussion of its

principle, and in effect to a great extent to make Second Reading speeches.
My hon.—and dare I say "questionable "?—Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) presented some interesting—land no doubt from his point of view damning—arguments against the principle of devolution, in the guise of attacking Clauses 18 and 19.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made heavy weather of the two clauses, doing less than justice to the Scottish Grand Committee—or rather, perhaps doing more than justice to it—by according to it a rôle that it does not have.
The Scottish Grand Committee is not a legislative Committee. It plays its part in legislation, and so does any Committee in this House. It is wrong to give the impression that it can initiate, go through and conclude any piece of legislation. All legislation must come through this House, be discussed at the Report stage and have a Third Reading. The Scottish Members of the Scottish Grand Committee can make up their minds about a matter. It can even go through the Scottish Standing Committee and then be defeated by a majority of English Members in this House. It is inaccurate, therefore, to say that the Scottish Grand Committee has the powers which are ascribed to it by the hon. Gentleman.
I accept that the speeches that we have heard so far from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds indicate some of the difficulties which develop when we try to put on paper a constitutional matter such as this. It has been said before in the House and in Committee that if we tried to do the same thing with our own Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, we should find ourselves in enormous difficulties, yet somehow or other we manage to iron them out in our day-to-day, week-to-week and year-to-year proceedings.
I am sure that it is right that the Scottish Assembly must have law-making powers, otherwise there would be little point at all in having an Assembly. No doubt that is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian would like, and it is also near and dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and other hon. Members. They


just do not want to have a Scottish Assembly. If it is agreed that there is to be a Scottish Assembly—and it was agreed on Second Reading—it would be a meaningless and impotent instrument if it were not given powers to make laws.
The limitations of the Assembly's powers in this respect have been clearly defined. There are some hon. Members who wish to have a Scottish Assembly with greater powers. They believe that the limitations and restrictions on the Assembly are far too narrowly drawn and that the Assembly should have wider powers. I believe that the balance has been reasonably struck, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends are correct in the way in which they have defined the limits and restrictions within which the Assembly will have the power and the authority to make laws.
But in agreeing with the principle of the Assembly's powers in this respect, I want to make this point clear. I think that the powers granted to the Assembly to make laws should be as wide-ranging and as sweeping as possible, but it is one thing to do that and quite another to wipe the slate clean entirely and start de novo—in other words, for the Assembly to have the authority to make enactments in regard to much of what has already been done in this House and is waiting to be put into effect.
I draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to the fact that there are provisions in certain aspects of legislation which make it encumbent upon this Parliament to devolve powers, for example, from new town corporations to the elected representatives of the new towns. This is already embodied in the New Towns Act 1968. I would deprecate any possibility of the Scottish Assembly coming into being and then saying "We have devolved to us the authority to do what we like in this matter." If that were to happen, the years of good work put into the creation of the new towns concerned would go with the wind. For this reason, I believe that a limitation should have been put into the Bill.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take into consideration at least the advice—I do not see why it cannot be advice—that could

be given to a Scottish Assembly in respect of matters which are waiting for one little step to carry them into fruition.
4.45 p.m.
In respect of the transfer of assets from a new town development corporation to the elected representatives of that new town, if the Scottish Assembly is given the authority to declare null and void the progress which has been made up to now, it will be three, four or five years before these matters can be considered again from the very beginning. That would be a complete waste of the time of hon. Members who in the past have worked so hard to bring this particular matter to the stage that it has reached.
I am quite clear in my mind that the amendments which are now under discussion in no way answer the necessity ——

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he sits down, will he say quite clearly what is his position on the following matter? In the event that this House were to decide, on some matter of general United Kingdom policy on education—it might be, for example, to go away from selection to comprehensive schooling—that it should apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and the Scottish Assembly, having a different political majority, decided to repeal that Act and not to apply it in Scotland, is it the hon. Gentleman's view that that would be permissible, while at the same time wishing to retain the supreme authority of this Parliament?

Dr. Miller: I do not think that that is a situation which would develop, because education will be devolved to Scotland. I believe that it is right that Scotland should have the authority to make laws, even though these laws are not the same as would apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think it is correct that that should happen. The Assembly will be starting from a new base and I think it is right that it should happen. It can happen, in any case. The laws relating to education are not static and do not remain exactly the same for ever. I do not see any objection to the Scottish nation, the Scottish people, having the right to make laws which are different from the laws of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Of course, one accepts the merits of Scottish education being handled in Scotland, and there is no argument between the hon Gentleman and myself on that. The point, however, is this: suppose that the United Kingdom Parliament, in introducing some new educational law, considered it to be of such supreme national importance, notwithstanding what the Scotland Bill said, and notwithstanding the powers of the Scottish Assembly, that it was essential to the United Kingdom as a whole that the powers of the Scottish Assembly in this respect ought to be overridden, and that the new system should apply on a United Kingdom basis, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it would be proper in a unitary kingdom for the Scottish Assembly to discard that argument and to repeal the measure?

Dr. Miller: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun because what he is saying is a matter of opinion. The Westminster Parliament might decide that something was in the national interest but the Scottish people might decide otherwise. If the lion Gentleman is bringing into this argument matters of security or defence which could be affected by some aspect of education legislation, then, of course, he is right and the Scottish Assembly would not have the right to supersede that. But I can envisage situations in which the United Kingdom Parliament might decide that what it was doing was in the overriding national interest with which the Scottish Assembly disagreed.
That would be the position that we would have to live with. My answer is; yes, I still believe that such authority and power should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, otherwise it makes the whole idea meaningless. That is the great dilemma in which hon. Members who do not believe in devolution get involved.
Before I was sidetracked, I was merely asking my right hon. Friends to take into account the situation which could arise not only in respect of new towns but other matters where the final step is not far from fruition. Would it not be possible to give some kind of advice to the Scottish Assembly when it is set up so that the Assembly would take such matters into consideration and not place them far down on the list?

Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend, I represent a new town. Do I take it that with his experience my hon. Friend feels that the Assembly should in no sense meddle in the new town development corporation or in the running of new towns? Since his new town is more mature than mine, I should welcome any comments that he has on this issue.

Dr. Miller: I did not quite say that. What I was saying was that the stage which has been reached in the development of new towns at the moment is such that some of them are ripe for handing over to the elected representatives over a period of years. Once that is done I do not think that the Scottish Assembly should have any more right to interfere in the affairs of new towns than it has to interfere in the rights of any other local authority. I should like that situation to develop in the near future and I ask my right hon. Friends to look into it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure where the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) stands in relation to the amendments. It seems to me that either he has misunderstood the nature of Scottish legislation and Scottish admistration, or, alternatively—probably more rightly—he dislikes the Bill, and any method of hamstringing it will suffice. I also believe that the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in his assessment of the role of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Purely by chance—I do not think the Scottish Office would have sent it out specifically for this debate—I received Factsheet RF 20 in my post this morning. It is entitled" A Guide to the Structure and Functions of the Departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland", starting with that memorable event in 1707 and coming up to the present. I warmly recommend it to all non-Scottish Members.
After talking about the Scottish Grand Committee being established in 1907 to consider Scottish Public Bills referred to it by the House of Commons, on page 12 it says:
It includes all the Scottish members and a limited number of English members when necessary to make up the political balance in the House of Commons as a whole.
It continues:
After second reading on the floor of the House or consideration by the Scottish Grand Committee, Scottish bills are passed for


detailed examination to the Scottish Standing Committee. This consists of a minimum of sixteen Scottish members, again supplemented by a number of additional members if required.
We therefore have a situation within the United Kingdom set-up by which it is tolerable for English Members to be added to the membership of the Scottish Grand Committee.
I recall that six months ago there was an interesting sight in the Scottish Grand Committee when we were discussing education colleges in Scotland and the attempt by the Secretary of State for Scotland to close certain colleges. When it came to a vote, a full column of English Members was summoned by the Conservative Party for the occasion. It was not necessary, because there were sufficient Scottish Members, including one or two valiant Labour Members, who voted against the Government. That makes the point that at present in this House in certain political situations English Members can affect Scottish legislation or, indeed, Scottish administration.
It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the present structure of local government in Scotland was imposed against the wishes of the then Opposition by an English Conservative majority. That is exactly the sort of reform of local government that is giving rise to some concern.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman elaborate on that? I have no recollection of a vote in this House against local government reorganisation being defeated by English politicians.

Mr. Wilson: The constitution of Strathclyde as a region is an example. That made a great difference to the structure of local government in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to depart from either Grampian or Tayside and go to Strathclyde, he will soon learn the views of many people in Strathclyde, particularly those living outside the centres of population, about that particular regional authority.
I was making the point that during the course of consideration on the Bill reference has been made to the West Lothian question. To my mind that question would probably be answered satisfactorily if New Clause 10 in the

name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) were to be passed by the House. To put it another way, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds enunciated the enigma of a situation where the intimate details of Scottish administration may be permissively altered by English votes without a similar opportunity being given to Scottish MPs. Speaking as a Scottish Member and not just from my nationalist position, I find that situation unsupportable.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to New Clause 10. For the sake of coherence in Hansard, I had better read it.
On the commencement of the Assembly, Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies shall not speak or vote in the House of Commons on matters certified by Mr. Speaker as being of exclusively English concern.
Two questions should be asked. First, is it easy for the Chair to decide what is an exclusive matter of English concern? As we have seen, there are so many financial implications that to raise but a few is a very difficult matter. Secondly, if the new clause is accepted, what will it do to sustain the British Government? That is the problem which was raised by Mr. Hardy in the correspondence columns of The Times and subsequently answered by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). I do not know what the answer to it is.

Mr. Wilson: We must leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East to explain it himself. I do not think that it would be difficult for Mr. Speaker to certify certain areas of English concern. It happens already with regard to Scottish Bills. Indeed, my hon. Friends and myself find it reasonably easy to decide what is English business and what is not.
5.0 p.m.
I turn, then, to the second argument advanced by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), which is whether it would be possible to sustain a British Government if Scots Members were debarred from voting on English matters. My answer to that is "Yes". A British Government would be able to produce legislation for Britain as a whole. Where


the legislation affected England as a whole and did not have majority support within England, presumably the Government would have to bring forward changes in their own policy to suit the nature of the English situation in order to get support within the House of Commons from English Members and to take account of electors in England. That is a perfectly fair situation, and I recommend it to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. However, I must leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East to give a more detailed answer.
Coming to the two amendments, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to two possibilities—changing legislation enacted before the establishment of the Assembly and for the future. One example which he put forward in connection with a change of legislation which had been enacted before the constitution date of the Assembly was the County of Zetland Bill providing for the control of Sullom Voe and certain other financial matters connected therewith.
It would be possible—though this is an arguable point—but it would not be an excuse to hamstring the Scottish Assembly from dealing with matters of purport enacted in Parliament in times past. But it would be almost impossible to change the law of Scotland on education, local government, social work, housing and so forth if the Assembly could not change preceding Acts of Parliament. The rules under which they are administered at present have been enacted in years past by a whole succession of Acts of this House.
Looking to the future, I have to put it to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that his argument will be viable only if he is prepared to say that there should be an integration of Scottish administration of Scottish education within the United Kingdom as a whole. If he is talking in terms of integration and of having a single education service and system and of having similar terms of service for Scottish and English teachers, and if he is in favour of the same sort of structure for local government and the National Health Service, he should say so, because it is in those circumstances that, with a unitary Parliament with supreme authority, it would become especially rele-

Vant—always assuming that the Conservatives are still in favour of such authorities since they knocked out Clause 1 last week.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is right that within our country certain powers and responsibilities should be delegated and devolved to the regions. That must be so with education, health and many other matters covered by the Bill. But I am concerned with the supreme authority of Parliament if it wishes to override any subordinate legislation. It makes no difference whether it is on education, energy, health, or any other subject. My concern and that of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends is to preserve the overriding authority of this Parliament to exert its supreme authority over all others.

Mr. Wilson: Where the hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental mistake is that Scotland is not just a region. It is a nation. If he were talking in terms of regions and if Scotland were a region of the United Kingdom in the same way as, say, Cumbria, there would be no difference in structure between Scotland and those other regions. What would be allowed within that regional devolution would be an opportunity to interpret the structure and to take certain specific decisions which had been devolved.
However, the hon. Gentleman must realise that Scotland has a separate structure of government. It is for that structure that the Scottish Assembly in our view is an embryonic form of Parliament, even though as envisaged it is the limit from the Government's point of view. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to find a logical solution which does not involve devolution, to say nothing of federalism or independence, he must go to a situation where Scotland is fully integrated within a uniform system of government throughout the United Kingdom. In that way, government from London might work. I do not myself think that it would.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible under a system of devolution for parts of the country to have very widely varying systems of education, National Health Service, social services, legal services and so on, without the unity of the United Kingdom being adversely affected? It is quite possible to do this so long as the


structure is worked out within the limitations which we have already decided.

Mr. Wilson: There is a difference to be drawn between unity and uniformity. What I think might be a passable state of affairs is that there should be a Scottish Assembly with powers to remodel and to change Scottish legislation in order to update it to suit changing conditions. What would not be acceptable is that Scots law, for instance, should be assimilated into English law. It is founded on an entirely different system not, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, on the basis of case law, but on Roman civil law. It is the principles of a Roman civil court which apply in Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: Does not the fact that for 200 years there has been a Union between England and Scotland in which that heritage has not been impaired seem to indicate that it is possible for that heritage to be retained without independence for Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There are many Scots lawyers, excluding the Minister of State, who would say that Scots law has been impaired as a result of Union and that the problem of trying to marry two separate legal systems has produced some peculiar results. They are fundamentally distinct. The Scots system is more akin to that of a European court of law. This is an interesting subject for discussion and one over which I could enthuse for quite a while. However, I return to the two amendments being debated.
The amendments are intended to smother——

Mr. Douglas Henderson: They are wrecking amendments.

Mr. Wilson: Certainly they are intended to smother the proper legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly. If we are to set up an Assembly of this kind, as we decided on Second Reading, we must allow the Scottish Assembly reasonable room in which to work.

Mr. William Small: In answer to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), my mind is ambushed by the conduct of the Scottish National Party of recent date in defying

the principle of Clause 1. As I interpret the clause, it is the Madame Defarge clause under the guillotine with someone in a tartan shawl.
The whole idea originally was destroyed in the ambush, and the similarity is contained within the competence of this clause, as I read it. It provides in subsection (2):
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
I think that there is a weakness in drafting there. I should have preferred the insertion of the word "any" in place of the word "an". That would have covered past and present. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is a lawyer, will know that an Act of Parliament has no destination and no time scale at all. Such a provision could relate back to Greek law.
Having watched the Stormont creation, which is now prorogued, in my view this Parliament defrocked Stormont, and it is unlikely that we shall give it a cloak again
My interest is aroused when we write an Act of Parliament in this style. What provisions are there for Her Majesty in Council at a given state and time to enact any philosophy if there is a contest between a Scottish Assembly repealing an Act passed by the Assembly, and this is approved by Her Majesty in Council? The problem at the end of the day may be that the Scottish Assembly is a nonstarter.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recollect that on Wednesday 23rd November the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) was reported in the Scotsman as saying that Clause 1 of this Bill
attempted to tie the hands of the Assembly unnecessarily. This vote liberates it and allows it to grow in authority.
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the SNP sees this as an enlargement of the Assembly's authority?

Mr. Small: My hon. Friend is correct, and I have that point in mind. However, I am known as a two-minute miler, and I do not make long speeches.

Mr. Iain Sproat: One of the most remarkable and objectionable features of the Scottish National


Party lies in its extraordinary ability to invent and perpetuate total myths. I call them myths although, if courtesy did not forbid me from so doing, I could call them by another name.
The trouble with myths is that when they are stated in this House, they tend to become widely circulated through Scotland. For example, we had the myth today that change in Scottish local government was carried through in this House only on the backs of English Members. However, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was picked up by one of my hon. Friends who pointed out that on that legislation there was no vote either on Second Reading or Third Reading. Therefore, that matter could not have been carried through on the backs of English Members. The hon. Gentleman then retreated quickly and said that he was talking only of Strathclyde—which, of course he was not, because he had not mentioned Strathclyde until that point in the debate. He also forgot that Strathclyde was debated in Committee when only Scottish Members were present.
That is another typical myth which the SNP attempts to perpetuate in Scotland when seeking to apportion any blame—although in respect of local government many of us would not regard it as blame. The SNP knows that a number of people in Scotland do not like the present form of Scottish local government, it knows that many people like something to hate, and therefore the SNP is trying to fasten that hate on to the English. That myth should be destroyed before it gains any more credence. I notice that the hon. Member for Dundee, East does not even rise to answer that point. I shall gladly give way to him if he wants to contradict me.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have made my position plain.

Mr. Sproat: The House, the country and perhaps the Press, if it reports this debate, will enable people to drawn their own conclusions.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw some of his myths about social security payments.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that this Bill was the production of able Ministers and conscientious civil servants. I shall not quarrel with either epithet, but were those Ministers never so able or civil servants never so conscientious, they would not be able to produce a Bill founded on a wrong principle. The Committee is fortunate to have this short debate before we reach the wider amendment, No. 247. The wrong principle to which I refer is that it is impossible for a Minister, be he man or angel, to back a policy which attempts to give subordinate legislative power to another Assembly within the unity of the United Kingdom and within a unitary State. It cannot be done.
5.15 p.m.
The overwhelming reason why many of us oppose the Bill root and branch is that we believe that it is a step down the slippery slope to separatism. In that argument we are always confirmed by the enthusiastic agreement of the SNP, whose Members at the same time are most enthusiastic supporters of the Bill.
This amendment illustrates yet again that this is yet another step down the slippery slope. In this situation the Scottish Assembly may pass a measure which may be repealed or overturned by this House. The Scottish Assembly will then take back that measure and say "We disagree, and we shall pass the measure once again". It will be more than a game of ping-pong because it will be much more destructive. It will be more like an artillery barrage from one side and then a return barrage from the other side. In terms of the SNP in a Scottish Assembly, it will be a barrage of nuclear weapons. The aim of the SNP is not merely to get through a piece of legislation but to drive a wedge between this House and the Scottish Assembly—in other words, between England and Scotland—and to destroy the Union and also this House. Therefore, I repeat that it is much more dangerous than a mere game of ping-pong.
We must be under no illusions that if the Scottish Assembly is set up, SNP Members in that Assembly will seize every opportunity to stir up the maximum amount of discord between that


Assembly and this House. These provisions are a positive incitement to constitutional conflict. This is not just something that might arise by chance, but it is bound to arise because it is the raison d'être of the SNP. This Bill will give them the weapon they want. That is why SNP Members are so constantly and consistently in favour of this measure.
This inevitable game of ping-pong, by which pieces of legislation will go between the Scottish Assembly and this House, is the inherent flaw in the Bill. One cannot extract the ability of the Scottish Assembly to disrupt legislation in this way without destroying the Bill. There is no way in which one can grant such powers to a Scottish Assembly within a unitary State. It cannot be done. One can have a unitary State and a federal system, although I do not agree with a federal system. Some of my hon. Friends favour a federal system, and at least it has the merit of being intellectually tenable. But what is not intellectually tenable, and indeed is politically dishonest, is to pretend that one can set up a Parliament in between a unitary State, such as that we now have, and a federal State and that this will not cause endless discord between the two. Therefore, if that situation is not avoided, I believe that it could lead to the breakup of Great Britain.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why a federal system would not cause disunity whereas a devolved system would do so?

Mr. Sproat: I do not advocate a federal system, but in such a system the powers of each part of the State are separate. There is no overall Government which can say "No, we disagree with you on that matter." The point of the Bill is that the supreme authority will rest in this House. Therefore, there could be circumstances in which that supreme authority could be used to overturn what a Scottish Assembly wished to do. Under a federal system that could not happen. Under a federal system one would not have discord, although there are other objections to such a course. However, under the system in the Bill, discord is inevitable. I believe that it could lead to the break-up of our country.

Mr. W. Benyon: I wish to intervene briefly in this debate to emphasise one point which has not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) or by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The most abrasive issue that will divide a future Scottish Assembly and the Westminster Parliament will be the block grant. We see from the list of devolved subjects set out in Schedule 10 that almost every item passed by a Scottish Assembly could affect the adequacy of the block grant. If the block grant were to take such legislation into account it would be penalising the rest of the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, it did not take into account such legislation passed by the Scottish Assembly, it would thwart the aspirations of that Assembly. Either way, the abrasive, disruptive force that that would exercise would be great.
Every hon. Member who has been a member of a local authority in any form will know that, whereas in local government one sits and grumbles about the actions of Westminster, there is no action that one can take because one would be ultra vires and would be surcharged. However, in this case, such disciplines and restrictions would not apply. There would be inducements to oppose legislation that would be at variance with what is required in assessing the whole block grant by the United Kingdom Parliament. Therefore, in those circumstances it must be right to retain the power of approval of the House of Commons. Otherwise the supreme authority, of which we have heard so much today, would be rendered nonsense and it would be dangerous nonsense at that.

Mr. John Smith: In some instances the debate has ranged wider than the precise matters contained in the amendments. However, the plain effect of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would be to smother the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly. It is proposed that there would have to be a procedure here for dealing with the matters covered by the amendment.
I should like to outline quickly the main point and purpose of Clause 18, which confers legislative competence on


the Scottish Assembly. This must be read together with Clause 19. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds knows, the legislative competence of the Assembly would be related to the devolved matters described in Schedule 10. Of course, when the Assembly comes into existence it will inherit a corpus of legislation that has been built up over the years by the United Kingdom Parliament on such matters as Scottish housing and education. It would be extremely odd if we did not give the Assembly powers to repeal provisions contained in Acts relevant to devolved matters when building up new legislation on such matters.
I can quite understand some hon. Members who have apocalyptic visions of doom—such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—addressing themselves not towards improving the Bill and its provisions but to giving us thundering speeches about doom and so on. If they wish to use the time of the Committee in such a destructive way, that is a matter for them. However, I shall address myself to the amendment that proposes that Parliament should have another go at legislation after it has been passed by the Scottish Assembly.
I believe it was the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who introduced a slightly different matter, that of a single Chamber system. I gathered that he was in favour of a bicameral legislature and I hope that we shall see amendments to that effect for the Assembly on the Order Paper—although who am I to demand that hon. Members should put down amendments? However, I doubt that that suggestion would receive much support in Scotland or in the House.
Another hon. Member raised a question about the repeal provisions. I have explained that they are necessary because there will be a corpus of legislation inherited by the Assembly that will relate to devolved matters. There is no substance in the point that an Act could be repealed by this Parliament and then again repealed by the Assembly, because Parliament may provide that Acts of Parliament cannot be repealed by the Assembly. The constitutional purists and theorists should address themselves—

Mr. Sproat: I did not hear the last sentence about repealing Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not hear. I said that if the United Kingdom Parliament wishes to entrench an Act so that it cannot be repealed by an Assembly, it can make such a provision in the Act and then the Assembly would not be able to repeal it because it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is perfectly simple. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman had not heard me, but it is clear that he did not understand. I do not think that he understands, but that is not my fault because it is quite clear that if the United Kingdom Parliament wished to put in an Act a provision that the Act's provisions were not to be repealed by the Scottish Assembly—even if the Act covered devolved matters—it could do so. That would be an easy way of solving the problem.
I should like to draw another matter to the attention of the constitutional purists and theorists, who are making objections. There is no resolution of the problems of the messages that go between this House and another place. I do not know whether one would call that game ping-pong but there can be a problem when messages go between the two Houses. However, we do not have to write the solution down in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Brittan: It was a mistake for the Minister to give forth that proposition because there is a clear way of resolving that problem, which is provided by the provisions of the Parliamentary Act.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member has not grasped my point. My point was about parliamentary messages going backwards and forwards. I am sorry that some hon. Members of the Opposition are not co-operating on this amendment so that we can reach Amendment No. 247, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has my sympathy in this. The problem of repeal could be dealt with easily.
We can take the argument the other way round. It would be foolish if the Assembly did not have the capacity to repeal Acts of Parliament concerning devolved matters because otherwise


whenever the Assembly wanted to make changes it would have to come to this Parliament, and that would not make much sense. I can understand that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wanted these matters canvassed in debate but I think he will now realise that there is not much in this point about repeal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am trying to understand. The Minister says that this Parliament could so entrench any Act as to make it impossible for the Assembly to change it. However, the language of the Bill is clear. Subject to Section 19—and I understand what that means in confining it to devolved areas—the Assembly
may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament".
A provision made under an Act of Parliament may include an entrenchment, and there is nothing in the Bill that says different. If this Parliament entrenched an Act then, according to the Bill, unless the Act fell within a non-devolved area, the Scottish Assembly could decide to repeal or change it.

Mr. Smith: With respect, that is not so. It would not be necessary to make provision in that form and it is never necessary to put into a Bill provisions covering that proposition, because that follows from the inherent authority of Parliament. Parliament could put in a provision saying that an Act would not be subject to repeal by the Assembly and that it would be beyond the competence of the Assembly. By those entrenchment provisions in the Act the matter would be taken out of the competence of the Assembly. That would have to be read together with the Scotland Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in disagreement with me, but I assure him that that is the position.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I simply want to understand how it is to be done. I want the Minister to be right, but I disagree with his interpretation of the language of the Bill. The Bill says clearly that unless a matter is covered in Section 19 the Scottish Assembly can repeal any provision. The mere fact that an Act has been entrenched would not make it unrepeatable. The only way that the Minister could achieve that would be by amending this Bill.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The provisions entrenching an Act would put that Act beyond the competence of the Assembly. Anyway, it would always be open to Parliament to change the competence of the Assembly, so this is a highly academic argument.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my hon. Friend saying that, little by little over the years, this Parliament could whittle away the authority of, and the laws made by, the Assembly until, in the end, we are back where we started?

Mr. Smith: As a matter of constitutional theory, it is possible for this Parliament to do anything it likes because sovereignty remains at Westminster. The Bill provides that powers should be delegated. That could have happened in the case of Stormont in Northern Ireland, but I cannot imagine any United Kingdom Government or House of Commons following the sort of policy suggested by my hon. Friend.
I am dealing with academic and theoretical arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite and am trying to lead them to a clearer understanding of how those academic problems can be satisfactorily solved. This is all highly academic and unreal. After we have given legislative competence to the Assembly, it will get on with the fashioning of laws on education, health, housing and other devolved subjects, and I hope that it will do a very good job.

Mr. Dalyell: Those who fashion laws often involve themselves in a great deal of public expenditure. It is fair to ask the question which I put indirectly through the letter of my constituent, Mr. Brian Fairley, and which was better put by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). All this fashioning of laws will cost a great deal of money. Suppose the block grant is necessarily limited, what will happen then? If there is a finite block grant, particularly one for a four-year period, which I regard as an unrealistic suggestion, money will be involved and the question put directly by the hon. Member for Buckingham has to be answered.

Mr. Smith: It does not. We are discussing Amendments Nos. 94 and 95—although I notice that my hon. Friend


did not address himself very much to them. The question of financial control and how the Assembly Administration will operate is dealt with in another part of the Bill. I have to deal with one part at a time. It would be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who took the trouble to put down the amendments and to argue them before the Committee, if I departed into other matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian talked about the fashioning of laws in his speech and said that there were too many laws. That is a totally absurd and simplistic statement. We may have some laws of varying quality and we may have some that could be improved, but I do not begin to comprehend such a populist and simplistic statement as that made by my hon. Friend. It is the quality of legislation to which we should direct our attention.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked about the law of Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was wrong in his articulation of the principles of the Scottish legal system. It is not built up on case law. That is the tradition of the English common law.
This Parliament has often failed to behave with proper sensitivity towards the differences between the English and the Scottish legal systems. I put that cautiously, but I know that many of my professional colleagues would put it a great deal more forcefully. Great violence has sometimes been done to the law of Scotland by the simple, crude translation of an English legal term into the nearest Scottish one. I hope that the Assembly will undertake the important task of fashioning new legislation for Scotland.
If we are to have devolution—and the House has approved the principle of the Bill—we should do it properly and give appropriate powers to the Assembly. One of the important pieces of equipment that the Assembly needs is the legislative competence provided by the Bill. The amendments seek to hamper the Assembly in such a way that it would not be able to operate effectively. It is tremendously important that the Assembly is given these powers.
We are giving the Assembly the power to amend previous legislation in areas

for which it is responsible. I have given a common sense justification for this and dealt with the academic theories of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The wisest course would not be to approve the amendments but to stick with the clause as it stands. It is a perfectly adequately framed piece of legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) raised a point of detail about the position of new towns. I think that he was referring to the powers which the Secretary of State for Scotland has under Section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act and the possibility of development corporations being wound up or some of their responsibilities transferred to local authorities.
The Government's view is that this must be a matter that is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, but I take on board what my hon. Friend has said about advice, consultation and co-operation in the handover period from the United Kingdom Government to the effective devolved Administration. There will be a number of problems, but I hope that the new elected Administration and the United Kingdom Government will approach them in a spirit of co-operation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride has said on behalf of his constituency and local authorties.

Mr. Benyon: The Minister has implied that I was not speaking to the amendments, but I was speaking to Amendment No. 95 and I hope that he will answer the questions posed in the debate.

Mr. Smith: I was not casting any reflection on the hon. Gentleman. I was casting reflections on my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. There is a great deal in the Bill and rather than move from one clause to another, it makes for a much clearer debate if we deal with the point before us at the time. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds nods in agreement. We can have a full debate on the financial provisions later. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments and adhere to the clause.

Mr. Dalyell: The fact is that the hon. Member for Buckingham asked directly


the question that I asked, perhaps, indirectly, and I hope that we shall get an answer. If there are to be 150 Assembly persons spending four or five days a week, 37 weeks a year fashioning laws, then, my God, they will not fashion laws without a great deal of expense.

Mr. Smith: I do not know how far that observation takes us in the illumination of the matters under discussion. Let me give my hon. Friend some advice. He rises to give us lectures, advice, exhortation and visions of doom. I do not know whether this will take the constructive work of the Committee much further. I have given a constructive reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon).
We ought to deal with matters as they arise in the Bill. Most hon. Members are seeking to take a constructive attitude, but my hon. Friend has been far from constructive in trying to expose Second Reading points on every amendment. That is entirely a matter for him, but if we hear complaints about the guillotine and the restricted time for discussion, I hope that none will come from him.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was about to congratulate the Minister and thank him for the reasonable way in which he responded, but at the end of his speech—and this was quite out of character—he launched into an unnecessary attack on the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr.

Dalyell). Therefore I can give him only half marks.

The Minister said that he had to deal with theoretical and academic points. He dealt with those, but he did not deal with the practical points. If this House decides, on matters such as education, health and local government, that there is something of supreme importance to the nation which should be applied to Scotland, I do not think that it should be possible for the subordinate legislature in Scotland to veto our decision. That is what the amendments are directed to cover.

It would be wrong for me to detain the House any longer. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 94, but, because the Minister has not dealt with the question of the supreme authority of Parliament, but has rather left it open, I think the House should vote on Amendment No. 95.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 7, line 33, at end insert:
' but such amendment or repeal shall have effect only after a draft has been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament '.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 69, Noes 189.

Division No. 22]
AYES
[5.40 p.m.


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bottomley, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bradford, Rev Robert
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Drayson, Burnaby
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony



Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Iain Sproat and Mr. W. Benyon.


Hall, Sir John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Golding, John
Orbach, Maurice


Anderson, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, John (Isington C)
Pardoe, John


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurie


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, William (Rugby)


Bates, Alf
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Bean, R. E.
Hatton, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Henderson, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham Sm H)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rose, Paul B.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Janner, Grevill[...]
Sandelson, Neville


Buchan, Norman
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Selby, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
John, Brynmor
Sever, J.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sillars, James


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small William


Clemilson, Ivor
Kerr, Russell
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamble, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawford, Douglas
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Luard, Evan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thompson, George


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davidson, Arthur
MacCormick, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ward, Michael


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David


Doig, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Watt, Hamish


Dormand, J. D
Madden, Max
Wellbeloved, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Welsh, Andrew


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollok)


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mitchell, Austin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Molloy, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ford, Ben
Newens, Stanley



Forrester, John
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. James Tinn.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ogden, Eric



George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 247, in page 7, line 33, at end insert:
' Subject to subsection (3) of this section—
(3) Parliament shall retain the right to make any law for the United Kingdom or any part of it, including laws relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
(4) Where any Act of Parliament is enacted after the coming into effect of this Act, and it is expressly stated in the Act that it extends

to Scotland, any Scottish Assembly Act whether passed before or after the Act of Parliament, shall be read subject to the Act of Parliament, and so far as it is repugnant to that Act, but no further, shall he void.
(5) Any order, rule, or regulation made in pursuance of, or having the force of, an Act of Parliament shall be deemed to be a provision of an Act of Parliament within the meaning of this section.'.
Last week the Committee voted against the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Bill. In doing so, those of us who followed the


guidance that was given from this Dispatch Box did so for two reasons. First, we did so because that clause contained a statement which we do not believe to be true—namely, that the provisions of this Bill
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
We believe that to be a false statement, not only because of the specific provisions of the Bill hut because of what we see as being the almost ineluctable consequence that would follow from its passage and the setting-up in Edinburgh of an Assembly of the kind that is created by the Bill.
Secondly, we voted against Clause 1 because in addition to stating wrongly that the provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom, the clause went on to say that these provisions do not affect
the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it".
We voted against that part of Clause 1 not because we do not believe in the legislative supremacy of Parliament and its overriding right to make laws for the United Kingdom but because we do not feel that that bold statement, conferring or restating the supreme authority of Parliament, is an adequate and effective way of ensuring that Parliament remains truly sovereign. In an attempt partly to rectify the damage we immediately tabled these amendments to Clause 18. I specifically and clearly use the words
partly to rectify the damage
because the damage caused by the attempt to enact a scheme of government which in our view will affect the unity of the United Kingdom and could potentially lead to its break-up is not damage of a kind that is capable of being rectified by any amendment. That threat and risk is created by the basic structure of the Bill.
The second criticism— that the Bill purports to reaffirm the supreme authority of Parliament but actually fails to take the legislative steps that are necessary to achieve that—can be rectified. We can make the legislative correction but we cannot correct the political damage which is being created by the Bill.
When one considers the legislative rôle of the Assembly one embarks upon the

most controversial area of all. During the previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), some of the potential areas of controversy and conflict were discussed at length—and that was right. If one is creating within a unitary State a body such as the Scottish Assembly which is given legislative power within a defined area, one is creating a time bomb and seeking to do something which has never been successful, except in different circumstances and on a minor scale.
If there is to be any chance of success at all for an experiment of this kind—which we regard as parlous, undesirable and unnecessary—one thing is clear above all. It is that there must be absolutely plain provisions to ensure that any conflict between the Scottish Assembly and the Westminster Parliament can he resolved. There must be a ready mechanism for doing that. It must be a mechanism which, so long as the unity of the United Kingdom is genuinely to be protected, must ensure that Parliament is sovereign. For that reason we have sought to persuade the Committee to accept the words in the first subsection of the amendment:
Parliament shall retain the right to make any law for the United Kingdom or any part of it, including laws relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
If the Government are sincere in saying that they wish to retain the sovereignty of Parliament, if their provision in the defunct Clause 1 is sincere, there can be no possible basis for objecting to a specific statement and enactment to ensure that Parliament does
retain the right to make any law for the United Kingdom or in any part of it, including laws relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
That is entirely consistent with the Government's own explanation of what the Bill does. The only difference is that they referred to it in Clause 1 in a non-legislative, oblique, cryptic and ineffective way. We are dealing with the matter in an effective, properly legislative and clear-cut way. There is no difference of philosophy if the Government are to be taken at their word.
It does not follow that this is a provision which, if the scheme that the Government favour is adopted, will be used frequently. I accept that the proper working of the Government's scheme envisages that the


Scottish Assembly will legislate within the devolved areas and that this Parliament shall not interfere. That is, of course, what the Government would like to happen. But the Government themselves recognise that it is desirable for the purposes of the general constitutional structure of this country that this Parliament should have the right to intervene if it wishes.
6.0 p.m.
The Minister of State, in dealing with other points to which I will come shortly, expressly prayed in aid the right of this Parliament not merely to legislate where the Scottish Assembly has already legislated but quite specifically to intervene and even to prevent the Scottish Assembly from coming back and repealing a Bill which has been passed by this Parliament. So the Government recognise, as I understand it, that, however undesirable it is that it should be used at all, it is necessary, if the unity of the United Kingdom is to be retained, that Parliament should have the right to legislate even for Scotland, even within the areas devolved. Therefore, I commend the first part of this amendment to the House in the hope that it will be regarded not as in any sense altering the essential structure of what the Government are doing but actually doing it in a proper legislative fashion.
It is wholly inadequate to rely on the override provisions of Clause 36 because, as I am sure the Minister of State would concede, they only provide for Parliament to prevent a Scottish Assembly Bill coming into effect in very limited circumstances. The override provisions do not in any way give the House the positive opportunity of expressing the sovereignty of Parliament by actually in rare cases legislating in the devolved sphere for Scotland.
However, that is not the end of the matter. One has to face the problems which may arise which are not, with due respect to the Minister of State academic matters which he castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds for raising. I do not see how, with all humility—a quality which ought to be present at least in small measure even in Governments when enacting legislation of this kind—one can with such confidence predict the outcome of an ad-

venture and an experiment which has not yet been launched in such a way as to say that the fears which my hon. Friend expressed are purely academic. I am sure that we all hope that they are purely academic, but they are none the less real possibilities which we would wish should be taken care of in the legislation and not left to the chance of the operation of the Scottish Assembly.
Therefore, one has to consider the question of what happens if the Scottish Assembly passes an Act which is inconsistent with a United Kingdom Act of Parliament. Plainly, if we are to have a legislative Assembly in Edinburgh at all it must have the right to do that because, as the Minister of State I think explained—to this extent I would agree with him—if an Assembly is taking over responsibility for a whole area of policy, it will inherit, affecting Scotland, a whole corpus of legislation dealing with the area, and it cannot effectively alter policy if it is to be a legislative Assembly in that area without having the right to pass Acts which are inconsistent with the United Kingdom legislation which has previously been applying to Scotland.
Therefore, if one is embarking on this road—I have made it clear that we do not want to start the journey—there must be a way of avoiding that consequence. A legislative Assembly must be allowed to pass Acts which are inconsistent with the United Kingdom Acts. But what then happens, if in the exercise of its parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy, this Parliament decides that, in spite of all that, the matter is so important and so serious that this Parliament ought to legislate in such a way as to imply the repeal or amendment of the Scottish Assembly Act which has been passed in order to repeal or amend a United Kingdom Act?

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Brittan: I will give way in a moment. The point that I am on is slightly intricate, and it will be better developed for a few moments more before I happily yield to an intervention.
What happens in that situation? The answer is in one sense quite clear. It is that the matter can go back to the Assembly if the United Kingdom Parliament has decided to legislate and to repeal the Scottish Assembly


Act; then the Assembly can repeal the United Kingdom Act which has been passed, and then it has to come back to the United Kingdom legislature, which can repeal the Scottish Assembly repeal Act. So the political ping-pong goes on.
The Minister's answer is that it is possible for this House to entrench a matter in these circumstances. Let us say that we are passing legislation, say, to nationalise various industries in Scotland in spite of the fact that the Tory-controlled Assembly does not want it—I give this as an example. He says that we shall entrench such a situation by laying down that the provisions will not be capable of being amended by the Assembly.
If that happens, there are two objections to such a course being carried out. First, let us recognise what it is. It amounts to a pro tanto amendment to the Scotland Bill. The objections to that are, first, that if Clause 1 is deleted, as it has been, and if nothing is put in its place, how do we know that the Assembly will listen to an amendment of its Bill, or to repeal of its Bill, or to any entrenchment in a Bill that this Parliament purports to enact?
The Minister treats it as axiomatic. He says that it is because of the inherent sovereignty of Parliament. But if this House has rejected a clause restating that inherent sovereignty, and then refuses to put anything in its place, it seems to us that there is a real argument that could be used by those who are seeking to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. It is the effect that, in that case, there is a new policy altogether, a new constitutional settlement, and that the mere say-so of this Parliament asserting the sovereignty of Parliament cannot be guaranteed to be sufficient to secure that end in a political situation of a highly explosive kind.
But there is a second point which, as the hon. Gentleman does not like apocalyptic vision but prefers practical considerations, I will put to him. If we are really trying to make this work, and if we do not want conflict, when this House has decided that a certain measure is so important that it has to be imposed on Scotland, even though it is within a devolved area, with all the passions which

will then have arisen, and with the shuttle-cocking backwards and forwards until finally this House decides that the provision has to be entrenched and the Scottish measure has to be amended, would it not be better in that heated political atmosphere to make it clear from the outset that in such a situation this House will he able to ensure that the will of this House and Parliament prevails?
It will be much better to do that in the constitutional enactment setting up the Assembly than in response, in a highly-controversial situation, to a particular piece of legislation in Scotland which, for some overriding reason, this House wishes to repeal. It is for that reason that subsection (4) of the amendment reads:
Where any Act of Parliament is enacted after the coming into effect of this Act, and it is expressly stated in the Act that it extends to Scotland, any Scottish Assembly Act whether passed before or after the Act of Parliament, shall be read subject to the Act of Parliament, and so far as it is repugnant to that Act, but no further, shall be void.
That is a carefully drawn provision. If, however, the Government, while accepting in principle, object to the drafting, we would happily consider amendments.
The provision is carefully drawn because it makes it clear that this should not be done by a side-wind. It is only if there is a clear decision of this House and Parliament, exercising the sovereignty which the hon. Gentleman has said is inherent in it, and only in such circumstances—the Assembly purporting to act contrary to that assertion of sovereignty—that the Assembly's will shall not prevail.
But even then it is not a question of striking down the Scottish Assembly Act altogether but merely regulating its rights
subject to the Act of Parliament
and only in so far as it is "repugnant to that Act" shall it be void. This is a workable, practical and realistic way of ensuring that, instead of waiting for a hotly-contested political issue and inviting this House then to entrench a provision regarding Scotland, we set up a scheme which is consistent with the Government's professed intentions from the outset.
It seems to me that the proposed provision also is in no way inconsistent with or a wrecking of the Government's basic legislative scheme for the Assembly


—quite the reverse. If anything, it but-tresses it because it deals with the constitutional situation which the Minister is confident will not arise but which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds says might arise. At any rate, it deals with that situation, and if it does not arise I cannot see why the Government should object to our proposal in any shape or form.
There is precedent for a provision of this kind. It is in Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920—an Act which sought to confer at least as generous a grant of legislative power to the Assembly created by it as this Bill does to Edinburgh, and possibly a more generous grant of a more federal kind. It nevertheless included a provision closely parallel to that subsection of the amendment. If that was so appropriate in the Government of Ireland Act, it should be equally appropriate in this Bill.
Faced with these arguments in favour of the amendment, if the Government resist it there are bound to be suspicions—which in the hon. Gentleman's view would be unnecessary—about the Government's good faith in wishing to express their support for the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the United Kingdom legislature. One thing is clear. Nothing in this amendment would prevent the Assembly from working within its legislative area in the way in which the Government want it to work. Therefore, if the Government oppose the amendment, I wonder whether it is because of a political fear that to concede on this point would give an impression of weakness—I hope not—or whether it is because the political pressures operating on the Government make it impossible for them to enact, in the only way that is really effective, a genuine protection for the United Kingdom legislature in the exercise of its sovereignty.
I hope that the Government will show on this occasion the readiness that they have expressed publicly to respond to amendments which are not wrecking amendments but which express the values and beliefs that at least the majority of parties in this House share—above all, the belief in the overall importance of the supremacy of Parliament and the unity of the United Kingdom. It is because the amendment would give real

effect to that belief in the unity of the United Kingdom that I commend it to the Committee.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I attempted to interrupt the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—I understand that he did not give way because he was in the course of developing an intricate argument—to give one answer among many to his rhetorical questions. One thing that would happen in the situation he posed is that the SNP would have a field day and would bring to bear, through the media and through every means at their disposal, a whole lot of supposed injustices about Westminster, Whitehall in general and the Treasury in Great George Street in particular. That is how the argument would be termed. I accept many of the legal points that he made, but this would be the political reality of the situation, a situation which would lead to break-up.
I am rebuked for making unconstructive speeches. I was so rebuked this afternoon. However, I do not see a whole lot of my hon. Friends bursting to make speeches. It is not as though I am pushing out anyone else on this side of the Committee. If a queue of my hon. Friends was waiting to speak, naturally the Chair would not have chosen me. The constructive speeches by my hon. Friends have therefore been remarkable by their absence.
We repeatedly return to the fact that the venture upon which my right hon. and hon. Friends are embarked is a "mission impossible". We return to this same question about the position of an insubordinate Parliament in part of a unitary State, a Parliament that will not go away. It is to that that we return every time.
I refer now to the speech by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. I cannot refrain from quoting a delicious gobbet from the Scotsman of Wednesday 23rd November in relation to what was said about Clause 1. The Scotsman, which is not exactly on my side in this matter, said:
One Minister commented ruefully about the first clause 'We thought it was important, until we lost it.' 
I will not try to identify the indiscreet Minister who said that, but I am sure


that it was no one present here today. However, what he said was very much the case. One could have been forgiven for believing when we were discussing Clause 1 that it was highly important. As soon as the clause was lost its importance diminished within minutes.
Secondly, I must repeat, for the benefit of those who did not hear it when I quoted it, the answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) as reported in the same newspaper. The hon. Gentleman said
The clause attempted to tie the Assembly's hands unnecessarily. This vote liberates it, and allows it to grow in authority.
We all know what he meant by that kind of remark.
I say therefore to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that this matter will go far further than he suggested. His amendment is a bit egregious because I still have not discovered whether he believes in the Assembly or not. Sooner rather than later the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will in these proceedings have to reveal to us whether they believe in an Assembly. I will willingly give way if I may have an answer to that question. The hon. Member and his right hon. Friend appear to be consulting on the matter. Either they believe in the Assembly or they do not. Which is it? It seems that they are not prepared to tell us. That is an impossible situation. Until I get an answer to the question I will not consider voting for a Tory amendment. I have voted against every Tory amendment and will continue to do so because theirs is a false position.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby talks about a ready mechanism to resolve conflict. I can tell him that there is no such mechanism. Here I have the support of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) because he knows at the end of the day that it will be either his position or mine that will succeed. He knows that he has the great organisation and camaraderie of a political party to support him. They are in business to get, through political conflict, the situation they desire. Once

the hon. Member and his hon. Friends come into being in the Assembly, and granted that no one can go into coalition with them or, in the gorgeous phrase of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), into wedlock with them, where does that put us? It puts us in an impossible position. I say to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that there is no ready mechanism for resolving the conflict. If there had been any such mechanism he could bet his boots that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have thought of it a long time ago.
I take issue with the hon. Member on another matter. He talked about normal legislation within devolved areas. There is great doubt about whether we can talk about legislation being in a compartmentalised devolved area. I must reveal to the House that at five minutes to seven on Saturday morning I nearly cut myself with my razor. At least I dropped the razor. What was this all about? It was caused by a report on the BBC of something the Foreign Secretary had said the night before in Edinburgh at the "Scotland in Europe" meeting. I was invited to it, but I went to the prior engagement of the Bo'ness Labour Party dance—[Laughter.] Hon. Members can see that I have my clear priorities——

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The Foreign Secretary might have done better to have gone to the Labour Party dance.

Mr. Dalyell: Indeed he might because we had some enlightening discussion there on the question of devolution, and my right hon. Friend could have listened to Charles Snedden, the ex-Provost of Bo'ness, on the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was reported on the BBC as saying that the Scottish Assembly should be consulted as an Assemby in relation to the United Kingdom's relations with the EEC. I tried to get a copy of the transcript of the meeting, but, as with so many other transcripts, this one was not forthcoming. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary chooses a major occasion in Edinburgh to say such a thing, how are we to be certain that even foreign policy is not to be a devolved subject? I can imagine the sort of things that would be discussed. It is implied that some good controversial subject


such as fishing limits would come within that category. Would the Foreign Office consult the Scottish Assembly or its representatives on fishing limits in relation to Mr. Gundelach and Brussels and all that? If so, what would Hull, Humberside, Grimsby, and Lowestoft have to say about it? If the Scottish Assembly is to have a special political clout in relation to foreign policy—and that seemed to be the purport of the Foreign Secretary's message—it raises important questions on the whole issue of United Kingdom foreign policy.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: As I had the advantage of being at that dinner in question, perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to explain that the Foreign Secretary suggested that the Assembly representatives would be on the fringe of meetings in Europe as part of the British delegation.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the representatives of Hull, Humberside, Grimsby, Lowestoft and Fleetwood to be on the fringes? We come then to a question of semantics. I want to know what happens when a subordinate Parliament is on the fringes of foreign policy decision making. No one can say that policy in relation to fishing is non-contentious or unimportant. It is one of the things that the SNP representatives in the north of Scotland are all about. They get far more votes from discontent among fishermen than from any support for changes in constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harry Ewing: They used to, but not now.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that my hon. Friend is right. There is a serious point here if we have a senior Government Minister, speaking on a major occasion, and fully reported by the BBC, saying, in effect, that the Scottish Assembly, a subordinate Parliament, is to have its finger in the pie of foreign policy-making. There are great issues here for the United Kingdom as a whole. We return yet again to the fact that, unintentional though it may be, the Bill is leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Powell: There is no inconsistency between the moving of this amendment and the moving out of the late Clause 1

of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was perfectly justified in disclaiming any such inconsistency. Those of us who were glad to see the back of Clause 1 were so relieved because we did not consider that it was realistic. We did not consider that it described correctly the situation that would be created by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and those who support him in his amendment say "Very well, we will import the practical reality, in terms as precise as we can draft, into the Bill." He says that that is the right way to go about it, and I agree with him. The interesting thing, however—and this is not to dispute the validity of the amendment—is that in endeavouring in proper legislative terms to create and confer the powers that must exist if there was any reality in the claim of Clause 1 or, indeed, if there is to be any reality in the continuance of the United Kingdom under a sovereign Parliament, and as we study the terms of the amendment, we begin to see the fundamental difficulties that they raise. That, l think, is the value of this amendment. It is an attempt to resolve the vague generality of the former Clause 1 into the conferment or re-assertion of specific powers, and when we do that, the same defects, the same old impracticabilities and inherent instabilities reveal themselves.
The Government may be unwilling to accept this amendment or anything equivalent to it. I wonder what will be the grounds on which they will do so. Will they disagree with the proposition that Parliament will retain the right to make any law, including laws within the legislative competence of the Assembly? Presumably not, because they are asserting that the unity of the United Kingdom under the sovereignty of Parliament remains unaffected. So if they object to subsection (3) of the amendment, they are objecting to the public statement of that which they wished implicitly to be believed.
Then we come to subsection (4), which is the attempt, if there is to be any reality in the exercise of overriding the legislative powers of the Assembly, to avoid an absurd conflict, theoretically an unresolvable conflict, a backwards and forwards, a navette between the House and


the Assembly. Yet no doubt the Government start back from providing in cold print that if the House legislates for Scotland, in effect its legislation for Scotland is to be immune from the attempt of the Scottish Assembly to assert its legislative competence within its own sphere of devolved responsibility. So the very blatancy in this amendment is its virtue, because if we do not like this amendment, we do not like it because we do not really intend that this House shall remain effectively sovereign and effectively in possession of legislative power over all parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government have got themselves into a difficulty over this and, as usual, it is only another form or another facet of the old West Lothian paradox. They have got themselves into a difficulty by asserting that even after this Bill, indeed, even after acts of devolution more extensive than this Bill imports, Scotland will continue to be represented in the House as at present. That was made clear at a very early stage in this history. There was nothing further from the Government's thoughts than to reduce the representation of Scotland in the House of Commons. When someone asked what the Scottish Members were to do, he was given the answer "There will be plenty for them. There are foreign affairs, there are the subjects which are reserved, they can busy themselves with those."
6.30 p.m.
But there is much more implicit in full Scottish representation than that. Let us suppose that a General Election in the United Kingdom has taken place and that one of the major subjects, perhaps a subject which influenced a great many of the votes which brought, let us say, the Labour Party to power, lay within the area of education, housing or health—or all those three. Let us suppose that those who sent to the House of Commons a majority from the United Kingdom as a whole were principally thinking about the policies affecting those three major subjects which were professed by the victorious United Kingdom party.
With the phalanx of 71 Scottish Members of Parliament—not all behind them but at any rate sitting on both sides of the House and playing, we are told, their

full legislative part—is it possible for the Government thus installed in office to say "By the way, the opposite of what we held out may well be going on in Scotland. There may be an entirely different housing policy and entirely different laws governing education in force north of the border. But never mind about that. As a matter of fact, in what we put before the nation at the General Election we were concerned only with what would happen in England."?
Earlier today the example was given of one such subject—comprehensive education. If a party believing in the principle of comprehensive education wins a majority in the House, on a manifesto embodying that principle. and forms the Government, then, with Scotland fully represented on an equal basis in this place, it would be sheer impossibility for that Government not to seek to secure consistency upon that principle between the legislation north of the border and the legislation which applied to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Thus, there is a dilemma here between the assertion of the unaffected unity of the Kingdom, with the continued representation of Scotland in this United Kingdom Parliament as heretofore, and our unwillingness to envisage the implications of that as expressed in our reluctance to contemplate—indeed, the inconveniences which we immediately discern in contemplating—the exercise by the House of Commons of its legislative power in the very spheres in which it might be called upon and even duty-bound to exercise it.
"No", say the Government, "we arc not prepared to see written into the Bill a provision which says that the House of Commons could legislate on education and housing over the head, if necessary, of a Scottish Assembly."

Mr. Harry Selby: Has there ever been an election fought on housing and education as the primary subjects of that election?

Mr. Powell: It is my impression that it is the view of the difference in the handling of those and similar subjects, mostly devolved subjects, between the two main parties on either side of the House which may well have been decisive in more than one election since the war. I am, indeed, sure that it is what the public believe will be the consequences


for the administration of these subjects and for the priority given to them which can influence and has influenced the outcome of General Elections.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether elections in Northern Ireland are decided on the basis of housing, education and other such matters?

Mr. Powell: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman wants a digression on Northern Ireland, but he will remember that we were talking about what it is that decides the majority in the House of Commons——

Mr. Henderson: No.

Mr. Powell: —that was the subject—in a United Kingdom General Election. It is quite true that, as long as the overwhelming question for the people of Northern Ireland is whether they are to belong to this Kingdom, all other issues, however important elsewhere, will be subordinate to that. But I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say that at General Elections which we have experienced in the last generation it has been that issue which has been decisive of the outcome or, indeed, has been the material of the debate in the campaigns which preceded them.
No doubt the Government will say—indeed, they are obliged to say—" How can we contemplate a United Kingdom Minister producing at this Dispatch Box legislation on subjects for which he is not responsible in a part of the United Kingdom where he is not responsible for them?" They will say, and rightly say, that there is a contradiction there. They will say that legislation is proposed here by Ministers who are responsible for it over the full extent to which it will apply, and they therefore are unable to contemplate the introduction of legislation for Scotland on devolved subjects.
Very well. But in that case they have gone much too far. They have an argument which proves much more than their case, for if the House of Commons is to retain legislative supremacy, as we persist in asserting and as the Government asserted in their lost Clause 1, it must have more than legislative powers over the whole of the kingdom. One cannot separate the responsibilities involved in legislation from the oversight of administration. It is impossible to

imagine that a Minister could come to the Box with legislation being responsible for the making of the law but not responsible for the manner in which it is carried out.
The contradiction which is thrown up by the amendment is that it unrealistically distinguishes between the functions of legislation and the functions of administration—this was a point raised earlier, inadvertently, I think, by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—for if Parliament is to act in accordance with the powers asserted in subsection (3) of the amendment, the Minister who introduces a housing Bill or an education Bill which covers Scotland must be a Minister who has been capable of listening to and answering an Adjournment debate on those subjects or a Supply debate on those subjects and who has been capable of answering Questions on them, since legislation and the right and necessity to legislate must spring out of involvement with and, indeed, responsibility for the subjects to which the legislation relates. The notion of responsibility for administration totally divorced from responsibility for legislation is a chimera. The two hang together.
It may be asked" But how does this square with the fact of local government?" It squares very well. This House by law has decided upon certain aspects of administration which it will allow to be differently administered in different parts of the country on the responsibility of locally elected bodies. That is a legislative act of the House, and it is, in the most genuine sense of the term, devolution.
But, of course, just because housing is a local government subject it does not mean that the Minister refuses to entertain Supply debates on housing. He does. As I said, housing is one of the major subjects of political debate in the United Kingdom and on the Floor of the House. He cannot possibly confine himself to passing housing Acts and then wash his hands of the manner in which those Acts are to be carried out—hence the very narrow and careful definition of those aspects of policy and executive action which are left at the discretion of local authorities.
So I say that the amendment reveals to us an extension, a rider upon the West Lothian proposition, and the


rider is this: not only is it impossible to devolve legislative power to an elected Assembly in one part of the kingdom but not in others, without dissolving the unitary parliamentary State, but it is not possible to devolve a much more extensive responsibility for administration in one part of the kingdom unless one can do so in the other parts. The same anomalies, the same contradictions and the same differences of function for the Members of this House arise if we attempt to do that.
We have in this country a system of local government which, with the exception of the Province from which I come, is universal. Throughout this country the same range of executive decisions is devolved by this House to the control of elected bodies. But if to an elected Assembly in one part of the kingdom we devolve the administration of a much wider area of policy, of a much more extensive range of subjects, than in other parts of the country, we shall find that we are caught on the West Lothian paradox, because in the last resort the legislative power, the power to fix in the form of law what is to be the overriding policy, cannot be divorced from the responsibility and oversight of the administration.
If the Minister were to say that those of us who come from Northern Ireland are in a different position from the rest of our colleagues at present, that would be perfectly true, because we can question Ministers in this House and hold them responsible for matters which in all the rest of the kingdom are the responsibility not of Ministers but of elected local authorties. That is another of those de minimis contradictions with which we live in the minimal case of Northern Ireland, but which, if we attempted them on the scale of Scotland, would prove just as destructive in the long run as the anomaly of local legislative competence which the amendment performs the service of highlighting.

Mr. Henderson: Every speech we have heard so far, both in the previous debate and in this, returns to the basic proposition that some right hon. and hon. Members cannot conceive of any form of transfer of power to Scotland, but wish to have the overriding veto of this House applied to everything that happens.
There was an alarming development today, because we heard from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—and I detected it in the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that such right hon. and hon. Members were far from accepting that Scotland had a right to separate provisions and separate consideration in such matters as education and housing, where traditionally we have had separate Scottish legislation because we have separate Scottish institutions and a separate Scottish system. There was even a suggestion today that the United Kingdom Parliament might wish to render these matters uniform throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles—

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman says "No".

Mr. Powell: Certainly, because the legislation on those subjects is the legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament, and the responsibility for them is borne to this House by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. If I misunderstood him, I apologise. He is talking as though there would be a desire in this House to introduce a new Bill on education which should apply throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles and that in those circumstances it should override whatever powers were given to the Scottish Assembly. It has always been accepted that, whether it is passed here or in the Scottish Assembly, separate legislation is required for Scottish education. I hope that there is no suggestion today that there should be a unified system of education within the United Kingdom, because we are very proud of the distinctive features in our education system as we are of those in our system of local government.
It was even suggested today that there might be a unified system of local government. The local government system in Scotland is very different, in a way which perhaps is not as desirable to many Scots as they would have liked. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred earlier to the attempt to defeat the inclusion of the


Strathclyde Region in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. My hon. Friend did not then have the reference in front of him. That attempt was defeated in the House on 22nd October 1973 by 152 votes to 79, mainly by English Members, as there were 26 Scots against the proposition and 22 in favour of having Strathclyde out of the Bill.
The core of the amendment and others which have preceded it is that they are designed to wreck the Bill. I make no apology for saying that. We are hearing the same old arguments over and over again. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has one speech, which he repeats time and time again.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Henderson: I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the chance to make it yet again now. He has made it about five times today. He occasionally brings a small new aspect to it, but he has only one speech.

Mr. Brittan: Whatever one's general views on the nature of this legislation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what there is about the amendment that is inconsistent with the Government's scheme under the Bill?

Mr. Henderson: It is for the Minister to explain what is inconsistent with the Government's scheme. The hon. Gentleman failed convincingly to explain the amendment. He put it down although his party had voted to remove something similar from Clause 1. It can only be that the Conservative Party realises that it made an almighty bloomer last week and is now trying desperately to retrieve the position. It is trying to present to the world a nice, smiling Unionist face, which we all know is its real character.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Henderson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because it would be such a shame to miss his comments.

Mr. Dalyell: I simply intended to ask an inquiring, artless question: would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to sit on the "fringes" in relation to fishing policy when a Scottish Assembly was consulted by the United Kingdom Government on their relations with the EEC? Would he not want to be in the action?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman made this point during the course of his remarks, and I shall answer him. I thought that the Foreign Secretary made quite an interesting contribution. I was at the Cruden Bay SNP dance the night before. It was a very good dance and we did not waffle about the views on devolution of the hon. Member for West Lothian. We had a happy time. I heard the remarks made on the radio the following day. Quite clearly, since at the present time the Secretary of State for Scotland is consulted by other Ministers in relation to the Scottish interests in the fishing issue in the EEC, it is only natural that the Assembly should take an interest in this matter and that there should be a mechanism for consultation as to the Assembly's views on these things.
The Secretary of State for Scotland at present goes to many of the negotiations and represents Scottish fishermen. We do not have a Secretary of State for Humberside to represent Humberside fishermen. That is done by the Minister of Agriculture. He represents the English interest and the interests of English fishermen in these matters, just as the Secretary of State for Scotland is there to represent Scottish interests.
The hon. Member for West Lothian chose a particularly bad example when he mentioned the fishing industry. I am certainly not prepared to sit on the fringes of it. It will be a matter of give and take between the group from the Assembly which meets the group from the United Kingdom, which has to go into battle with the EEC on these matters, as to how far the representations and the views are given weight and how strongly they are based. It is a matter that we shall be taking up at the appropriate time.
The suggestion by the Foreign Secretary was, I thought, quite constructive and helpful. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian—who is, I believe, a very strong pro-European—should resent it. I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that a greater number of people were to be consulted on these EEC matters than at present.
The basic fact is that there are hon. Members who just cannot thole the idea of the Scottish people making any decisions for themselves. That is what all


these amendments are about and all this talk of a veto. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to some kind of mechanism for resolving disputes. Why should the mechanism be an English veto in this House? Disputes are surely resolved by discussion and by negotiation between different bodies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman likes confrontations, as the Conservative Party seems to do in industrial matters. Perhaps he wants to carry this appetite as far as confrontation with the Scottish Assembly.
We were even asked to suppose that this House had decided to legislate for some form of educational system for the whole of the United Kingdom. Why should this House want to legislate for an educational system for the whole of the United Kingdom? I can only regard such a suggestion as mischievous and impertinent. People who make suggestions of that kind are trying to stir up trouble.
It has always been accepted that Scotland should look after its own educational system and that should continue to be the case, whether through the mechanism of Members elected to this House or through Members elected to an Assembly in Scotland. Those Conservatives and those rebels on the Government side who make suggestions of this sort are trying desperately to make this legislation unworkable. That is the whole purpose of these amendments, and I recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should resist them.

Mr. Ian Gow: Once again the Committee is invited to consider a key constitutional element of this Bill without the presence of the Lord Advocate and without the presence of any of the other three Law Officers. It would have been helpful to the Committee if one of them had been here. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) says that we are better off without them. Perhaps he is right.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), as often happens during these debates, touched almost by accident on a very important matter. It is a matter of regret to the Committee that we do not have before us the text of the

extraordinary speech that was made by the Foreign Secretary in Scotland last Friday. It was clear from even a cursory reading of the reported text of that speech that the Foreign Secretary has hardly glanced at the Bill. The hon. Member for West Lothian illustrated the impossibility of defining the areas which are within the legislative and executive competence of the proposed new Assembly.
In Group 14, in Schedule 10, fisheries are stated to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly and within the powers of the Scottish Executive. It is true that the competence of the legislature and of the executive is limited to
 any part of the sea up to a distance of 3 nautical miles from the low water mark of any part of the mainland or adjacent islands ".
I am told that this refers to salmon only, but it would certainly be within the interest of the EEC that we should have a preservation policy within three miles of the coastline. The hon. Member for West Lothian was right to draw attention to the difficulty of defining exactly what are the areas within the legislative and executive competence of the proposed new Assembly.
When we were debating Clause 1 last week, the Minister of State was at pains to explain to the Committee that the sovereignty and the supremacy of the House would be unaffected. We on this side of the Committee voted against Clause 1 because we believed that there was a fundamental conflict between the wording of Clause 1 and the wording of Clause 18. It is really anyone's guess as to what would have been the judicial interpretation if ever this Bill had become law with both Clause 1 and Clause 18 in it. If both clauses had been submitted for judicial interpretation, which would have been supreme?
Clause 18(2) states that
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
The late Clause 1 said that nothing in the Bill would affect the
authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
I submit that the wording of Clause 1 and the wording of Clause 18 are totally incompatible. That is why we were right to get rid of Clause 1.
The amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) clarifies the position still further and, if I may say so, most admirably, for here we are really seeking to put into clear draftsmanship precisely what the Minister of State told us was the purpose of the Government when we were debating Clause 1. We on the Conservative side have therefore come to the assistance of the Government to improve the draftsmanship of the Government's own Bill. The Minister of State ought to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, whose amendment spells out not only the policy of the Opposition Front Bench but also, as we learned from the Minister of State's own words last week, precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend's amendment, we find, is greatly superior in its draftsmanship to what was produced by the Lord Advocate and all those folk who are dithering away in the Lord President's office and in the Scottish Office. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will accept this fact gratefully and graciously.
I do not know why my hon. Friend should not offer his services full time to the Government in order to assist them in their draftsmanship. It would greatly improve the Bill——

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees with the point of order that I made at 3.30 p.m.? I contended that, given the delicate issues of judicial review by the Privy Council, it will be essential for the Attorney-General to attend our debate tomorrow. He is, after all, as I understand it, the Minister who answers in the Commons for the Lord Chancellor, to whom the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is finally responsible.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gow: Yes, I do agree with the point of order that was raised by the hon. Gentleman at the start of our proceedings at 3.30 p.m.
The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby spells out something that we have been urging all along, namely, that if we are to preserve the unity of this kingdom it is essential to preserve the legislative supremacy of the House. It

is all very well for the Scottish Nationalists to assert that it is impudence for the House to retain its legislative authority over Scotland, but it goes to the whole essence of our concept of the United Kingdom that the House should retain full legislative supremacy over all parts of the United Kingdom and, ultimately, in all matters.

Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that the Scottish people should have any right to decide any question for themselves?

Mr. Gow: I repeat what I said. I stand for the supreme legislative authority of the House ultimately over all persons and over all causes within the Kingdom.

Mr. Welsh: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the supremacy of this Parliament does he not really mean the supremacy of the English majority within this Parliament? Does he not have enough trust and faith in the Scottish people to run their own affairs without introducing an English-dominated veto?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman does not understand what is meant by unitary government or what is meant by United Kingdom. It would be possible to argue that the people of East Sussex, East Cornwall or even East Aberdeenshire are in a permanent minority with regard to representation in this place.
As in the past the hon. Member for West Lothian has asked my colleagues on the Front Bench for a statement about the Scottish Assembly. I must give him a clear answer on my part. I am strongly opposed to the setting up of an Assembly in Scotland because I believe that it will be the first step towards the break-up of the Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby has done a service to the House and to the Government by the forthright and vigorous way in which he has drafted the amendment and in the unanswerable way in which he has presented it to the Committee.

Mr. Tim Renton: I followed with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), but I was distressed when he referred to the amendment as being designed to wreck this legislation.


He also used the phrase that it would be mischievous or impudent of this House at Westminster to think that it had any right to legislate on education in Scotland. By doing so the hon. Gentleman quoted the nub of the Scottish nationalist case for independence for Scotland. But he totally misconstrued the amendment.
A point which has not yet been made in this important debate—I hope the Minister of State will listen, because it is an important point—is that we must read the amendment in conjunction with Clause 35, which we have not yet reached. Clause 35 will cause us very great difficulty, because that is the clause that provides:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act) and such further provision as appear to Her to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act.
That clause gives powers to the Government of the day to change any past legislation of this House which is consequent on legislation which has been passed by the Scottish Assembly.
The Scottish Assembly could decide on compulsory purchase of private homes in Scotland to be sold at minimal prices. The Government of the day in this place —a Labour Government—might say that in order that there should not be discrimination between the two sides of the border, they wished to pass a provision in this House that was similar to or consequent on the Scottish Assembly Act. That will cause a great deal of worry when we come to it.
But the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is, I believe, the mirror image of Clause 35. What it is reasserting is the ultimate legal supremacy of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as represented here at Westminster. I believe that my hon. Friend was oversanguine when he thought that the Government might accept the amendment. I agree with all his reasons for it, but I fear that the Government have already sold the pass and also—this is the message of the SNP—that freedom once given cannot in any shape or form be taken back.
What the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East wishes to make quite certain is that once the Bill has been passed, there shall be no path left in this House to change it in any shape or form. In essence, he is saying that there will no longer be legislative authority in this House of Commons. It is precisely for that reason that I believe the amendment to be so very important.
It comes down to the principle of whether this House of Commons will be able to repeal the Bill. It is essential for us to establish the principle that we shall be able to repeal the Scotland Act if at some time in the future this House decides that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Government Back-Bench Members are outnumbered by Government Front Bench Members by three to one?

Mr. Renton: I was going on to say that Clause 1 had within its bowels its own contradiction. That might equally well apply to the position of the Government and the Labour Party at the moment. They have within their bowels their own contradictions, and that is why there are no Members present on the Government Back Benches other than the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) himself.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East queried why it was that we were now moving this amendment when we had voted, as he did, to throw out Clause 1. But it is surely fairly simple to see why. Clause 1 had within its bowels its own contradictions, because at one and the same time it reaffirmed the unity of the United Kingdom but added that nothing would affect the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it. It is now perfectly possible for this Parliament to make laws that do away with the unity of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the declaratory statement in Clause 1 was insufficient and imperfect.
The amendment that we now wish to insert would reinforce the defunct Clause 1 and would make specific what was previously both contradictory and declaratory. In order to avoid conflict between the Assembly and this House at Westminster it is essential that there be a legislative Assembly that will be able to sort


out the flaws in this legislation that will certainly become apparent in the years ahead.
Any flaws that are developed by lawyers or by argument in Edinburgh will affect the unity of the United Kingdom. There must be a legislative chamber, therefore, to which the issue can be returned, if necessary. This amendment specifically restores to this House the ability to put right those matters which in later years prove to have been badly defined or misstated in the Scotland Bill.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Lothian say that he could not support the amendment. He then indulged in some knockabout stuff about wanting to know what Tory Party policy was on devolution. But with all respect to him, this has nothing to do with the Tory Party's policy on devolution. For anyone who believes as strongly as he does against devolution and for anyone who shares our wish, as he does, to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom to say that he cannot support our amendment is a matter which greatly surprises Opposition Members. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was capable of more than that, because, if he believes in the unity of the United Kingdom, if he believes in the legislative supremacy of this House, and if he believes it necessary to have one Chamber where flaws in this Bill can be sorted out, it is essential that this amendment be passed.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman believe any kind of Assembly to be impossible? I think that certain members of his own Front Bench are being a little hypocritical, if that is a parliamentary word, in wanting to get the best of both worlds as they see it. I will not even consider supporting any Conservative amendment until we are clear whether the right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) want an Assembly at all. I asked the hon. Gentleman a very simple question, and I ask him again. If the Opposition want me to consider adding my support to their amendment, let the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby answer "Yes" or "No" to a very simple question. Does he want any kind of Scottish Assembly, or does he rule out that possibility altogether?

Mr. Renton: The argument of the hon. Member for West Lothian seems to rest on the proposition that the Bill is like the curate's egg: it is bad in parts. So he does not want any truck with any attempt to make it better. That is a defeatist argument. The Opposition did not win the day on Second Reading. Therefore, I believe that it is our duty to try to improve the Bill as much as we can.
This is an argument which would have the effect of removing some of the evil parts and reducing many of the potential dangers which lie in the Bill as it is drafted without Clause 1. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will change his mind and support the amendment.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The empty Labour Benches speak more eloquently than any of the important speeches in this debate about the attitude of Government supporters towards this fundamental constitutional Bill. But it goes beyond that. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the disgraceful feature about this Committee stage is that no Government supporters, either for or against the Bill, are taking the trouble to play an active part in the Committee's deliberations. Whatever the differences of view may be between the various parties on the Opposition Benches, right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee are doing their duty to their constituents in putting forward their views of the Bill, whether they be for or against it.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) made a two-sentence intervention a few minutes ago.

Mr. Rifkind: That is quite true, and obviously I must apologise to the absent hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) who made that one contribution.
I intend to intervene only briefly in this debate in order to comment on the speceh of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). I am not sure whether his tongue was in his cheek, but it was extraordinary that he of all the members of this Committee should have had the brazen nerve to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) of seeking to


produce a wrecking amendment designed to destroy the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is clear. It is not to create an independent Scotland. It is not to create a federal United Kingdom. It is to create a devolved Assembly. If devolution means anything, it is that the United Kingdom Parliament is to remain the ultimate sovereign Parliament for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom on all matters. Powers are not being surrendered to a Scottish Assembly. The Assembly is being given power to legislate and to take decisions in those matters devolved to it. Whatever one may think of the amendment, clearly it will not go beyond a devolved structure.
But what are the Scottish nationalists seeking to do? They have tabled Amendment No. 101, and presumably they believe in it. It seeks a Scottish Assembly with powers to bass laws on any subject other than half a dozen specific topics, including the making of peace and war, the conclusion of treaties, matters concerning the defence of the Realm, treason and trade furth of Scotland. That might be a legitimate point of view, but it has nothing to do with devolution.
7.15 p.m.
If that amendment were carried, we should be creating a federal structure. The Scottish Assembly would be sovereign, except in the specific matters exempted. So, if any amendment is to be considered wrecking in the sense of seeking fundamentally to change the nature of the Bill, it is Amendment No. 101 tabled by the Scottish nationalists.

Mr. Henderson: It improves it.

Mr. Rifkind: That is a matter of opinion. But certainly it would so fundamentally change the proposals put forward by the Government as to produce a form of constitutional change totally different from that proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is one of the fairest hon. Members in the Committee. I am sure that he will not go on in this vein for too long. If he accepts the principle of the transfer of powers and responsibilities to Scotland

for certain functions, it becomes a matter for debate whether it be four, five, six, seven or eight functions. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the Bill and to ensure that we have control of those other functions.

Mr. Rifkind: I must disagree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East. This Bill is intended to produce a devolved Assembly. The hon. Gentleman's proposal in Amendment No. 101 would create not a devolved Assembly but at the very least a federal structure in terms of the relationship between an Assembly and this House. It is a wrecking amendment in the sense that it would destroy the purpose of the Bill.
However, the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby would not change in the slightest the legal powers enshrined in the Bill. If it were passed and the rest of the Bill remained unchanged, it would remain a devolved structure of Government, for good or ill, which was being approved by this House.
Whatever the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East thinks of the Government's proposals, he has no right to suggest that this, of all amendments, is a wrecking amendment. There are many others from which he can choose if he wants examples of wrecking amendments. There is no shortage of them on the Notice Paper. They have been tabled by his own hon. Friends and by other hon. Members, and they would destroy the fundamental objective of the Bill. To suggest that this one is a wrecking amendment is to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not read it. On the other hand, if he has read it, clearly he is being mischievous.

Mr. Sproat: It is essential that we take every opportunity that we can to entrench the fact that the House must remain sovereign. That is what we were trying to do by the two amendments which we discussed in our previous debate and which were not so comprehensive as this one. It is this essential principle to which we return.
In a rather condescending and patronising manner, the Minister of State ticked off the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for making what he described as Second Reading speeches.


However, they were not Second Reading speeches. They were taking the central principle of a Second Reading speech and applying it in detail to the matters in the amendments. Those who believe that this is a bad Bill have a clear duty to do that.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian that if we do not pass this amendment we are inciting constitutional conflict. Those in the Scottish Assembly who may be members of the SNP are so anxious to prove their political strength and virility that they will choose every opportunity to fight Westminster—unless we spell out the fact, as the amendment proposes, that the House is sovereign. Otherwise we are inviting even more conflict than will inevitably follow in any case. Even if we pass this amendment, there will be dispute. There is no way in which one can have simultaneous functions at Westminster and in the Scottish Assembly so that there will be no conflict.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the House is sovereign. He is saying that it is the English Members who will be sovereign. Is he prepared to use that English majority against the express wishes of the people of Scotland in an Assembly?

Mr. Sproat: I am prepared to use the British majority to put forward British legislation for British voters. The fact is that the present Labour Government have 36 Labour Members from Scotland, and that enables them to tell people in England what they should do. At present it is the Scots who tell England what to do, but that is a necessary consequence of the fact that we are a united kingdom. We must entrench that idea wherever we can and spell out the legislative supremacy of the House. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
Arising from what the hon. Member for West Lothian said, I was not shaving at 6.55 in the morning and did not hear the report about the Foreign Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member was asleep."] I probably was asleep, or even working up some amendments on this Bill. I did not hear the Foreign Secretary, who was reported as saying that a Scottish Assembly would be consulted on how the United Kingdom should conduct relations with the EEC. That is an

incredible stone to throw into our debate. Suddenly we are being told that the Scottish Assembly will have power to influence British foreign policy.
Last night the House discussed the common fishing policy and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke in favour of a 200-mile limit. Both major parties in the House are in favour of only a 50-mile limit. No doubt that matter will be discussed at the Scottish Assembly, and if the SNP Members had their way, they would go for a 200-mile limit, but what about the hon. Members who spoke in the debate last night and who are concerned about Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Falmouth? Only one SNP Member was here throughout that debate. Are we saying that a Scottish Assembly will have more power over British foreign policy in terms of fishing than will the great ports of Hull and Grimsby? That is a ludicrous proposition. We must try to nail that canard.

Mr. Dalyell: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the report which I mentioned was considered important enough to be the first item dealt with on Saturday morning in the BBC Scottish News. Furthermore, I checked the matter with those who had been there, in case I had misunderstood the position. A former Labour Member of the House who was present confirmed the gist of what I said.

Mr. Sproat: I shall be happy to believe the hon. Gentleman if he will give me the information. We can then table a Question asking the Foreign Secretary to lay a copy of the speech in the Library so that we may see for ourselves how certain members of the Government see the powers of the Scottish Assembly ever increasing. Originally we were told that the Assembly would only deal with subjects such as housing and roads. Now we are suddenly told that it will deal with foreign policy.

Mr. Dalyell: That is right.

Mr. Sproat: This point is relevant to this amendment, because the further we extend this principle the more there are grounds for a dispute between the House and a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: So far as I know, the affairs of the EEC are not foreign policy.

Mr. Sproat: They are co-ordinated, as we know from every memorandum that comes from Brussels. In about the fifth paragraph of each memorandum we see words to the effect, "It is the duty of the Foreign Secretary to co-ordinate policy on these issues". I suggest that the duty of the Foreign Secretary relates to foreign policy. Therefore, I do not accept that point.
This instance points to a considerable widening of the area of policy with which the Scottish Assembly will deal. It widens the area of possible dispute. If this Bill goes forward, disputes between Edinburgh and Westminster are bound to follow. At least this amendment seeks to limit that area of dispute.

Mr. John Smith: There is one point on which I should like to comment because it has been raised in this debate. It relates to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Edinburgh on Saturday night. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the matter. I think that my hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the words of the Foreign Secretary or his words may have been misreported by the BBC. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will contain himself and not subject me to so many sedentary comments, I shall try to make myself clear.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister should treat the Committee Members, who are trying to assist, with a little more courtesy.

Mr. Smith: We would all progress very much more speedily if people did not make sedentary comments before one has even got part of the way into one's remarks. I am trying to deal with a matter raised in this debate, and perhaps for once the hon. Gentleman will listen.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian must know that the Foreign Secretary was talking about the relationship of the EEC to the Assembly. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek to check what was said. I am sure that he has misled the Committee in the account he has given of my right hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister is so certain that I have misled the Committee, let me say that I have checked this matter with people who were there. I repeat that it was the first item on the BBC that day. I asked the Library for a transcript of the speech, because I am careful about these things. That transcript has not been forthcoming, and the Library says that it cannot get a transcript of the speech. Those are the facts. It is through no lack of effort on my part.

Mr. Smith: What the BBC in Scotland chooses to put at the top of its news items is not always regarded by me as a measure of its importance. We have had some experience of that recently on a number of issues. I am surprised that my hon. Friend has taken this line. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the Foreign Secretary.
I want to say a few words in reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), but I wish merely to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that if he discovers that his remarks about the Foreign Secretary are wrong he will inform the Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: If I am wrong, I shall say so.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: With respect to the Minister, he should be careful before defending a speech made by the Foreign Secretary which he did not hear and has not read, as I did. I think that the Foreign Secretary did not refer merely to the representatives of the Assembly being on the fringes of Europe and attending meetings in that capacity, but drew a comparison with the German Lander in which members of the federal Parliament attend meetings in Europe.

Mr. Smith: That may well be the case and I understand that the hon. Gentleman was there. I am trying to make the point that the consultation was in respect of devolved matters for which the Assembly was responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seeks to make out that the Foreign Secretary was talking about fishery matters. He must know full well that fisheries is not a devolved subject, except in a limited extent in


respect of freshwater fisheries. However, as far as I am aware that is not a major item of concern in the Community.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister be willing to use this opportunity to avoid doubt and to state categorically that it is not the intention of the Government that there should be any consultation with the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies on any matters that would not come within their devolved responsibilities?

Mr. Smith: There would be no relevance to any such consultations, because consultations can be brought about only through mutual responsibilities. There would be a great deal to be said for consultation between the United Kingdom—which alone can represent this country in the EEC—and the Scottish Administration in respect of matters for which the Assembly was responsible and which might become the subject matter of EEC regulations or directives.
My understanding of the Federal Republic of West Germany is that such consultations take place between the Lander Governments and the Federal Government before the Federal Government make propositions within the Council of Ministers of the European Community. I am confident that the Foreign Secretary's reference was within that territory. That was a side issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and some hon. Members opposite.
The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby seemed to hinge on the decision of the House on Clause 1 of the Bill. He talked about repairing the damage and rectifying the situation, and I received a slight hint of a bad conscience from his having found himself in the same Lobby as the SNP during that Division. Mixed motives took hon. Members into that Lobby, and I shall not comment further on that. It is not for me to speculate on the motives of the Opposition.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister might perhaps not allow himself to be accused of imputing a bad conscience to me, but what he is expressing is sour grapes.

Mr. Smith: That might be thought to be wit and, if it is, no doubt it will be appreciated. The hon. Member for Cleve-

land and Whitby has difficulty in explaining the Opposition's position on this and it was his party's bad conscience rather than any effort of his own to which I was referring. I was referring to a collective bad conscience. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the collective confusion that has been illustrated in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked the Tory Front Bench whether it was in favour of a Scottish Assembly. He asked repeatedly and received no reply. It is all right for the Bourbons on the Back Benches opposite who are against devolution of any sort or shape to launch attacks against any effort towards devolution, but it is not so easy for the Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby says that in the absence of Clause 1, this provision ought to be put into the Bill and argued that subsection (3) in the amendment would accurately state the position of the United Kingdom Parliament. Our view of the position is that there are no limits to the authority of Parliament over all matters and persons within its jurisdiction. That authority does not rest on explicit provisions and statutes. Such provision is not necessary to create or maintain Parliament's supreme right to legislate. That right is unabated and in no way affected by the provisions of the Bill.
The House will recollect that during my closing speech on the debate on Clause 1, I said that the clause was a useful it no higher than that. I said that it was there to affirm the supremacy of Parliament, not to safeguard it, because Parliament's supremacy is there in any event. There are various ways of stating such a proposition. We believe that that formulation was the most desirable way of putting it.
We now come to subsection (4) upon which there is more disagreement between the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and me.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Before we leave subsection (3) and go on to subsection (4), will the Minister make absolutely clear whether he is saying that subsection (3), as proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, is unnecessary and would make no difference to the reality of the sovereignty of Parliament as instrinsically understood and embodies in the Bill or constitution?

Mr. Smith: Yes. Subsection (3) would not affect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament whether or not it or Clause 1 was in the Bill.

Mr. Tim Renton: Is the Minister saying that he would be prepared to accept subsection (3) of the amendment?

Mr. Smith: No. It is not necessary to have such a provision at all to safeguard the sovereignty of Parliament. The Government believed that it would be useful to have the statement contained in Clause 1 which affirmed the sovereignty of Parliament. The House took a different view. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby put forward a different proposition.

Mr. Brittan: There is genuine doubt in our minds about what the Government have in mind. If it would be useful to restate the position in Clause 1, why would it not be useful to restate it in Clause 18—albeit in a slightly different form and in more legislative language?

Mr. Smith: It is not necessary—even when cast into more legislative language, whatever that may mean. The proposition is differently formulated from the one drafted in Clause 1. I was asked directly by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) whether it was necessary to preserve parliamentary sovereignty—either by the formulation in Clause 1 or by the formulation put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not. Parliament's sovereignty does not have to be safeguarded because it exists.

Mr. Britton: The Minister has answered a question that I did not put. He has explained why he believes that it is not necessary but not why it is not useful although he thought that Clause 1 was useful.

Mr. Smith: I have made clear that we preferred the formulation in Clause 1. The hon. Gentleman has put forward a different form of words and we preferred the form that the Committee, regrettably, did not choose to accept.
The whole of the amendment is tied together. According to subsection (4) there would be provided a rule of repugnancy which would be introduced so that there would be a rule of construction

when the courts had to consider together Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament and Acts of the Assembly. The repugnancy would operate. As the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said earlier, it is true that there were such provisions in the Northern Ireland Act of 1920, and he might well ask why, if they were considered useful thug, they are not considered useful now. Without going into the possible differences between the two Acts, it is interesting to note that in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which was drafted by a Tory Government, similar provisions were not included.
I wonder whether the rule of repugnancy is such a desirable one to have in a statute—and if the 1920 statute is brought in aid, I ask why it was not included in the 1973 Act. I know that it is not fair to ask this of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby because he was not a member of that Government and had no hand in the formulation of the legislation. However, the House should bear that in mind.
Instead of a rule of repugnancy operating when a court considers legislation, it is much better that there should be the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. Although the United Kingdom Parliament will be the sovereign institution while the Assembly will have its powers delegated to it, Acts of both Parliaments will have equal weight and be considered together in the courts in the same way as would two Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament. Courts often have to deal with the provisions of two United Kingdom Acts. I believe that they could deal with an Assembly Act and an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and construe them according to the normal rules which they apply.
There is no particular merit in having a repugnancy rule. One difficulty would be that all Assembly legislation would have to take account of it, and this is casting an eye far to the future because the Assembly would have no competence over any of the provisions which might be repugnant to an Act referring to Scotland passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. The amendment refers to Acts which apply to Scotland. That means a change from the rule that Acts automatically extend to Scotland. No doubt the hon. Member for Cleveland


and Whitby has in mind the special provisions.
Anything passed by the Scottish Assembly could be repugnant. If the United Kingdom found itself in conflict with the Assembly, the United Kingdom Parliament's legislation would be paramount and it would be better to face up to the problem in the drafting of the legislation rather than having the repugnancy rule. In practical terms, there are certain advantages in not having the repugnancy rule, and this is probably why it was abandoned in the 1973 Northern Ireland Act.

Mr. Cow: Is the Minister telling us that if, after the coming into operation of the Scotland Act, this House passes a measure which includes a provision that the Scottish Assembly shall have no power to amend it, Clause 18(2) will not apply?

Mr. Smith: I am saying that if the United Kingdom Parliament wants to entrench a particular provision, it can be put within a United Kingdom Act. Since this is the sovereign Parliament and the Assembly is operating merely on the basis of delegated powers, we could do that. Another technical way of doing it would be to amend the Scotland Act and put the matter outwith the competence of the Assembly. This House alone is the sovereign institution. We have never pretended that the Assembly is something that it is not. We do not have to provide for the sovereignty of Parliament. It is in existence already.

Mr. Rifkind: There is some confusion here. At one stage the Minister said that this House will remain sovereign even in devolved matters, but earlier he referred to interpreting possible contradictions beteen an Act covering a devolved matter and the Act of an Assembly. How does he reconcile those statements?

Mr. Smith: I can do so quite easily, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks about them, he will be able to do so as well. We are talking about a United Kingdom Parliament that is a sovereign institution. The Assembly is different. When there are two Acts, they have to be construed together. In the highly unlikely situation of a United Kingdom Parliament choosing to legislate in a

devolved area, one would hope that the Parliament, which would, presumably, be taking action to replace legislation of the Assembly, would take the trouble to frame its legislation to ensure that its Act prevailed.
If it wishes to preserve its sovereignty, the United Kingdom Parliament should be careful about drafting its Acts. It has the power to do that. That is how the situation would be resolved.

Mr. Dalyell: How does that fit in with the rôle that is to be given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. Smith: The rôle of the Judicial Committee is to deal with questions of vires. If the United Kingdom Government wished to challenge legislation of the Assembly on the basis that it was ultra vires the powers of the Assembly, the matter would be decided by the Judicial Committee. However, that is another matter. I am dealing with the argument about the sovereignty of this Parliament. The most effective check against the Assembly extending its powers is the use of the Judicial Committee, but I have to counter arguments from the Opposition dealing with a rather academic matter. The vires check would be used if the Assembly sought to extend its powers by, for example, taxing oil revenues. It would then be checked by the Judicial Committee.
7.45 p.m.
There is always the possibility, since this is the sovereign Parliament, that we could legislate by repealing the provisions of the Assembly Act. But that would be a clumsy way of doing it. That is why we have devised the vires check and the override provision. I have sought to explain why, on balance, the repugnancy rule is undesirable and why it would not be a practical way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Brittan: I apologise for intervening again, but I hope that I am raising points of genuine concern to the Committee. Will the Minister deal with the point on which I laid some stress? I accept that this House could pass legislation which expressly repealed an Act of the Assembly and could entrench it by amending the Scotland Act, but would it not be preferable, instead of specifically amending a constitutional enactment in


the face of a political situation caused by a particular piece of legislation which this House regards as intolerable, to provide in advance a constitutional enactment so that we arc not put into the position of pointing the finger at the Assembly and saying that it is doing something that we will not stand for? Would it not be better simply to say in advance that this is not an insult to the Assembly but we are making provision for such a situation without waiting for a constitutional crisis and without making amendments to legislation on an ad hoc basis?

Mr. Smith: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says and this is what led us to provide the vires check and the override provision. They will enable conflicts to be dealt with in a way that will not necessitate Parliament passing fresh legislation. The hon. Gentleman says that it would be useful to have this provision in advance and before the pos-

sibility of conflict arises. I part company with him here because I do not believe that the repugnancy rule is an effective way of doing it, particularly in regard to future Assembly legislation. The Assembly would have to look carefully each time it passed legislation to see whether there was provision in any United Kingdom Act that would make it repugnant. There would be uncertainty in legislation about whether the rule would operate in disputes before the Courts.

I part company with the hon. Gentleman for sound practical reasons. He has raised an important point and argued it with great cogency, but, for practical reasons, I advise the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 169.

Division No. 23]
AYES
[7.49 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Alison, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Baker, Kenneth
Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Hodgson, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bottomley, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
Kershaw, Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buck, Antony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Burden, F. A.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Carlisle, Mark
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Carson, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McCusker, H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Cope, John
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector
Wells, John


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint



Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Anthony Berry and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Hall, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hatton, Frank
Pardoe, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Heffer, Eric S
Parker, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Henderson, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkinson, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bates, Alf
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Radice, Giles


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rose, Paul B.


Boardman, H.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Janner, Greville
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Buchanan, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Selby, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones. Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Canavan, Dennis
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carmichael, Neil
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Clemitson, Ivor
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Cohen, Stanley
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Luard, Evan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crawford, Douglas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spearing, Nigel


Crawshaw, Richard
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
MacCormick, Iain
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dalyell, Tam
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Deakins, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thompson, George


Dempsey, James
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Doig, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mitchell, Austin
Watt, Hamish


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Molloy, William
Welsh, Andrew


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moonman, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric



Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Joseph Harper


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John

Question accordingy negatived.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 248, in page 7, line 36, leave out
'and approved by Her Majesty in Council'.
In moving this amendment I hasten to explain that I have no objection at all to the involvement of Her Majesty in these matters. The amendment is primarily a probing amendment. That does not mean that it is lacking in importance. We have no particular wish to remove the rôle of Her Majesty in Council and we seek to find out what the Government mean by the provision.
We seek to discover how that provision is to be regarded as in any way consistent with other language in comparable provisions. Clause 18(3) states:
Proposed Scottish Assembly Acts shall be known as Bills, and a Bill shall become a Scottish Assembly Act when it has been passed by the Assembly and approved by Her Majesty in Council.
The words
Approved by Her Majesty in Council
are a formality which appears in Acts of Parliament. It does not mean a personal involvement of Her Majesty. It means that somebody on her behalf exercises


some discretion as to whether an Act shall become law.
If that is the intention, which at first glance one would expect it to be from the wording of the subsection, one must ask who will act in that capacity and advise Her Majesty whether an Assembly Act should be approved. Is it to be the Secretary of State or the United Kingdom Government? Who is it to be?
If it is a purely formal matter, is there any need for such a specific provision? Is it not confusing, because one would normally expect from the words that are used that there is to be some specific political body acting in the way that is provided by the Bill giving approval or otherwise to an Act? If it is intended to be a formal provision and that Her Majesty in Council should act as a sort of conduit pipe, the words are inconsistent with the language in the rest of the Bill. The wording is confusing if the provision is meant to mean that anybody—Her Majesty or the Leader of the House—has any say about whether an Assembly Act is approved.
Clause 20(4) contains a related provision:
If the Judicial Committee decides that a Bill is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly the Secretary of State shall not submit it to Her Majesty in Council for approval.
A number of questions arise from that. The provision seems to indicate that the powers of Her Majesty in Council are exercised by the Secretary of State. That is because under Clause 24 the Secretary of State is supposed to submit matters to Her Majesty in Council. He cannot, therefore, be submitting them to himself. If this is meant to be a formality the phraseology is confusing. If it is a formality, why use such language?
I observe that there appears to be no requirement that the Secretary of State should submit legislation to Her Majesty in Council for approval if the Judicial Committee either does not disapprove or does not have to consider it. There is no obligation to submit legislation for approval if the Judicial Committee says that it is intra vires or if the Committee is not invited to consider the matter. That is not covered by Clause 18(3). There is no obligation on Her Majesty in Council or on the Secretary of State, but one

would expect that the Secretary of State would have a positive duty to consider it before it goes to Her Majesty in Council.
This matter creates echoes of what we were told about Clause 4(1)(b), which states that the Assembly shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State. I asked what would be the difference if the words
by order of the Secretary of State
were removed. I was told that that was the mechanism that was used. I thought that it seemed to be a confusing way of going about it. If it is purely a matter of machinery, why is it that that machinery is the Secretary of State and not Her Majesty in Council in that part of the Bill when Her Majesty in Council must approve a Bill before it can become law?
So one has a series of alternative provisions. It is not clear which are meant to involve the exercise of a political discretion. It is not clear who is supposed to be exercising that political discretion, if a political discretion is to be exercised. It is also not clear if it is intended that there should be no exercise of a political discretion, why different words and apparently different machinery are provided in different parts of the Bill for those formal provisions.
In case the Committee thinks that I am taking up time on pure formalities, I would make two points. First, it important when one is embarking on a new procedure of this kind to use these hallowed phrases in a very careful way, when one talks about Her Majesty in Council and matters of that kind, and not just to put them in in a rather slapdash way. It may well be that the Government have a consistent and clear-cut answer explaining what is formal and what is political, but it is not readily apparent to me. I have tried to study the Bill as carefully as I can, applying the constitutional precedents that are known to me. I hope that that can be clarified.
There is a matter of slightly greater substance. We are provided once again with an illustration of the sort of difficulties, this time perhaps only of an informal kind, that face the Government because of the nature of the type of devolution that they are creating. Because of the difficulty of attempting legislative


devolution within the context of a unitary State, they are having to resort to very great and difficult twists and turns to fit in the formalities of the dissolution of the Assembly on the one hand and the passage of this legislation on the other.
The contrast with the situation in Northern Ireland is, again, an interesting one, as it was in the last debate that we had. In the Northern Ireland situation the Government seemed more ready to face the realities of that sort of situation and actually provided for a Governor-General. Whatever phrase they used, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, and whether one believes that the phrase "Governor-General" would offend Scottish sensibilities and that some other phrase should be used, the real point of substance is not any kind of patronising or colonial attitude towards Scotland—quite the reverse. The point is that as long as we have a situation in which Scotland is still under the Crown, if there is a formal power to be exercised by somebody other than a United Kingdom Minister and a formal power to be exercised, in a sense, directly between Scotland and the Crown, that ought to be clearly indicated.
The way in which one would do that would be to provide some titular of that kind who would be expressly referred to and to whom would be allotted the formal powers. I am not advocating that such a person should be created, but that would be more consistent with the sort of arrangement that the Government have in mind than straining at the leash and using the Privy Council, Her Majesty in Council, or other even more obscure ways of going about it. There is a real difficulty, which emerged last week when we considered the question of the dissolution of the Assembly, when there was much talk about the Prerogative and direct access to the Monarch.
Again, I stand to be enlightened but I did not find it possible to understand what the Government were trying to say. What is meant by all this wording about direct access to the Crown and absence of direct access to the Crown? We have a very simple situation in which a Scottish Assembly is granted by the Bill certain powers to pass Bills within a limited area. There is the provision for making sure that the Assembly does not exceed

its powers by the Judicial Committee's having a look at matters under Clause 20. But, that having been done, I should have thought that a Scottish Assembly Act could become an Act. I cannot see what direct access to the Crown and the Prerogative have to do with it which would stop the Act operating in that sort of way.
8.15 p.m.
For some reason the Government think that there should be a formal procedure. Surely the right formal procedure, if the Government feel that they must have it, is to have a Governor-General or Viceroy, whatever one might wish to call him. Let us remind anyone whose susceptibilities are capable of being affected by that kind of provision that it is a question not of England standing against the Scottish people but of the British Crown having a specific Scottish expression, at least for these formal purposes. I am not in favour of doing that, because I am not in favour of this whole way of going about things, but I am making this point to show what a mess the Government have got themselves in. They cannot even get the formalities right.
There is no answer to these questions, and it seems to me that, in relation to the use of the phrases "Her Majesty in Council" and "formal powers of the Secretary of State", the Government have failed to produce an answer that is clear as where there is a real discretion and where there is none, and that they have also failed to provide a clear channel for such formalities as they think necessary.
Most important of all, in practical terms there is the simple point that Clause 18 makes it seem that there is someone acting on behalf of the Crown who may or may not decide to approve a Scottish Assembly Act. If there is no such person it is dangerous to use the words
approved by Her Majesty in Council
without any further mechanism for ensuring that it is clear to all and sundry that it is a pure formality. These are muddy waters and I hope that they will be clarified.

Mr. John Smith: rose——

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I call Mr. Smith. I think, judging by the nice smile on the face of


the Minister, that he may have complete answers to these questions.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said that these were muddy waters. He himself muddied them a little. I listened with admiration to the ingenious way in which he managed to make a case. I am not clear whether he is in favour of there being a Governor-General. The Government are not. That is our clear answer on that point, and it is clearer than the answer we got from him about it.
The provisions for having Royal Assent to the Bills passed by the Assembly parallel the provisions in this Parliament. The phrase "Her Majesty in Council" means the Privy Council, and that is largely a formal procedure. The hon. Gentleman took us to Northern Ireland and said that at least in Stormont there was a Governor General. He spoke as though the last legislative provision for devolution in Northern Ireland was the Government of Ireland Act 1920, but in fact it was the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The then Conservative Government did not provide for a Governor General in that Act; they provided that the measures, as they were called, of the Assembly should be approved by Her Majesty in Council. That is precisely the provision in this Bill. No doubt the considerations that led us towards the formality that we have in this Bill carried the same weight with the Conservative Government in putting such a proposition in their 1973 Act.
One advantage, as the hon. Gentleman noticed, was that when we have the necessity for Royal Assent it allows the Secretary of State to operate the provisions of Clause 20, because the obligation is on him first to consider the Bill and, if he is of opinion that it is no within the Assembly's legislative competence, to refer it to the Judicial Committee. That procedure is gone through before he puts it to Royal Assent. It would be more difficult for him to operate in that way if he were the person who had to signify consent. There is a great deal to be said for following the way in which United Kingdom legislation is done, and that was how it was proposed that the measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be done.
I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but it does not raise major points on the Bill. There is an acceptable procedure in the Bill. I do not think that it is of significant importance that the phrase "Her Majesty in Council" should be used in one provision but not in certain others. It does not matter one way or the other. I do not see the advantage of necessarily having the same phrases throughout the Bill. No failure of meaning has been demonstrated; nor has it been shown that a formal expression is required throughout the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we do not specify that the Secretary of State "shall" submit a Bill once it has gone through the hoop of the Judicial Committee. It is not necessary to prescribe all that. We do not expect that any Secretary of State would unreasonably refuse to put a measure forward for Royal Assent. One could think of all sorts of situations to cover in the Bill, but we do not think that it is necessary to put them in the Bill.

Mr. Brittan: As I understand it, the Privy Council is the body that exercises the formalities. What is to ensure that it is formalities that are being exercised, taking into account the fact that the Privy Council is obviously capable, in another emanation, of being a politically-operative body? In Clause 4, there is reference to dissolution being by order of the Secretary of State. We were told that that was a formal order. Why not specify "shall be dissolved by Her Majesty in Council"? It seems a curious discrepancy. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it does not really matter whether it is the Crown, Her Majesty or the Privy Council in that provision. The least that one can require in talking about formalities in a constitutional context is consistency of formality.

Mr. Smith: We are dealing with different matters in Clause 4. The Secretary of State there does have discretion. He has a descretion as to time either side of the date of the election. That is the exercise of some political discretion. It would be inappropriate to ask Her Majesty in Council to deal with that.

Mr. Brittan: I am talking of Clause 4 but the hon. Gentleman is talking of


Clause 3. Last week we had a debate on the phrase
shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State himself dealt with it. I asked him why it was necessary to have the words
by order of the Secretary of State
when the decision as to dissolution was to be made, under the terms of Clause 4, by the Assembly by two-thirds' majority. I pointed out that there was then no question of there being any genuine political decision to be taken. I was told that it was purely to provide a formal mechanism. If that is so, why is the formal mechanism in Clause 4 the Secretary of State and in Clause 18 Her Majesty in Council?

Mr. Smith: Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the same matter—dissolution of the Assembly. To have one type of machinery in Clause 3 and a different type in Clause 4 would not make sense. The machinery should be the Secretary of State. In particular cases of premature dissolution, it makes as much sense to use the Secretary of State for that provision as for the formal procedure in Clause 3. In the unusual situation provided for in Clause 4, why not have the same machinery doing the same thing? We could go on arguing the niceties of some of these provisions, but should we not be making progress with some of the more substantive parts of the Bill?

Mr. Brittan: That observation does not lie in the mouth of the Minister of State since he and his right hon. Friends have taken steps to ensure that we make all too rapid progress. These are substantial points, and in that case why not, if it is so convenient for the Secretary of State to operate the formalities in Clause 4, give him that right in Clause 18 as well?

Mr. Smith: I am prepared to be patient with the hon. Member and to answer all these questions. He says that somehow we are hurrying the discussion. But surely the Opposition have a certain responsibility in those circumstances to direct the attention of the House to the matters they think are important and should be thoroughly discussed. I am entitled to observe that there may be some more important matters in this Bill

than the formalities of the way in which the Royal Assent is given to Bills.
Let me answer the question why, since we have machinery under Clause 4 for dissolution, we do not employ the same machinery in Clause 18. The two clauses deal with different propositions. Clause 4 deals with the dissolution of the Assembly and Clause 18 with the giving of the Royal Assent to legislation. We think it desirable that where proposed legislation becomes law the Assent should be given by Her Majesty—perhaps it is a formality exercised through the Privy Council—as with United Kingdom Acts of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby described his amendment as a probing amendment, and I hope that I have been able satisfactorily to respond to him. I have explained the logic of the Government's position. I must remind the Committee that in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 the Conservatives arrived at much the same conclusion and came up with much the same provisions as we have here. That was a devolution Act of a Conservative Government. Whether it lasted long or not is not germane to the argument about this mechanism. The fact that it was included in that Act indicates that there is some sense in the Government's provisions, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am all for progress, but I must recall what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on an earlier occasion when he commented:
I should explain that the position in the Scotland Bill is no different from the position under the Scotland and Wales Bill. Nothing in the transfer of powers involved in devolution affects the position of Her Majesty, who would, for instance, continue to receive advice only from Ministers, not direct from the Scottish Executive."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1396.]
In reality might not this be a bit difficult? I think that this issue could well arise in the discussion on Clause 24, and that might be a more appropriate place in which to discuss it.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britian) described this as a probing amendment. Matters related to the Palace are always among the most delicate that the House has to deal with.


However, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby says that we are simply talking about Her Majesty in Council. I am not so sure, because this is the first subject ever on which Her Majesty the Queen, on a famous occasion a few weeks ago, has expressed her views. It was understandable that she should do so, and since certain matters were raised in in relation to herself, should not there be some kind of statement on these matters of what she thinks? She has every entitlement to express views, although that might be better done through her new Private Secretary, Sir Philip Moore.
There is some obligation on the House of Commons to find out what the Queen thinks about this, because she is very closely affected. It is all very well to talk about formalities, but these are not the normal kind of formalities. I am wholly in favour of the Crown being kept out of political argument. But when Her Majesty is so personally affected and when people make speeches about what they expect her to do or not to do, the matter takes on a slightly different aspect.
There was a well-known discussion and controversy about what Her Majesty did or did not say to a member of the SNP at Stirling Castle——

Mr. Harry Ewing: It was at Perth.

Mr. Dalyell: —or wherever it was.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That was shocking!

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, but the fact is that it has become something of a public controversy.
Furthermore I must say to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that his party was quoted on page I of a very recent edition of The Sunday Times as saying that it wanted the Queen to be present, but apparently she was to be present not at the opening of the Scottish Assembly but at a flag-lowering ceremony to mark the end of the hegemony of the British Parliament.
When that kind of statement appears on the front page of a major newspaper in this country, the time has come to inquire what is the view of the Palace.

Clearly, the Queen would accept whatever advice Her Government gave her, but this seems to be a rather different case. People are now expressing very definite views about what Her Majesty should or should not do, and it would be legitimate to obtain the view of the Palace on this delicate issue.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: I wish to lay it firmly on the line that when self-government of the type envisaged by the Scottish National Party comes into being we explicitly wish the Queen to remain Head of State.

Mr. Dalyell: Should I take it, then, that the reference in The Sunday Times to the Queen being present only at a flag-lowering ceremony was inaccurate and unfair?

Mr. Crawford: Newspapers do not always get everything correct.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree that newspapers do not always get everything correct, but I should like to have a clear version of what was said. Is the statement in The Sunday Times totally unfair or is it fair?

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know how the debate suddenly diverted to The Sunday Times, the lowering of flags or whatever else it may be. I remind the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—I hope that he is not a candidate for the post of Viceroy of Scotland—that on page 426 of "Erskine May" the reference to the use of the Queen's name is as follows:
Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers
—the hon. Member for West Lothian has acknowledged that—
and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament would be immediately checked and censured.
I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian has gone far enough in his views on what Her Majesty would or would not say. I suggest that we should get on.

Mr Dalyell: I accept that, Sir Myer. I say, in defence, that this is the first time that she herself has made a speech on what might be deemed to be a political issue.

Mr. Britian: I have indicated that this is a probing amendment. I cannot pretend that I feel that the situation is totally clear, but since we do not particularly wish to achieve a specific legislative goal by this amendment and by removing these words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In replying to the last debate the Minister said that he hoped to persuade the House that there was some sense in the Government's argument. I think that there probably was. I hope that he will accept that what is being put forward in Clause 18 as it stands, without the acceptance of some of the excellent amendments moved by my right hon. and hon. Friends and without the acceptance of our amendment to the original Clause 1, which has disappeared, the clause does not maye sense and will be a recipe for conflict.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give some clear assurances on this clause, for otherwise it might not be possible for us to accept it as a reasonable clause. In our discussions so far the Minister seems to have been working on the assumption that we shall be dealing with sensible and reasonable people at Westminster, a sensible and reasonable Government, and a sensible and reasonable Assembly. In an ideal world, if we had this situation we should resolve our problems with good will and understanding. The Minister of State has sometimes said that although he himself is a sensible and reasonable person, some of his colleagues and some of his hon. Friends on the Benches behind him are not sensible and reasonable people.
I am sure that with your long experience of Parliament, Sir Myer, you will accept that no everyone in Parliament is as reasonable as you are. Obviously, therefore, we have the possibility of flash-points if things are going wrong and if there is a difference of opinion.
Again, Sir Myer, I am sure that you will accept that there is the possibility of conflict if we have a Scottish Assembly and a Parliament here with different political parties in power and, perhaps, individuals who are clashing with one another because of economic difficulties.

For example, if we have a Labour Government continuing in power, Scotland's economic difficulties will become far more serious. We already have 180,000 unemployed, with no prospect of an end to it, and in situations of this kind there will always be a recipe for conflict between Edinburgh and London if we do not lay down the rules and demarcations correctly so that there is no doubt about what the relationships and procedures will be.
I regard this clause as one of the most important in the Bill, and for this reason I think it deplorable—I am sure that you will agree, Sir Myer—that again we have to draw attention to the fact that on the Government Benches there is only one Back Bencher present, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who, we know, is——

Mr. Crawford: Will the hon. Gentle-give way?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman is always dropping the most terrible bricks, and I do not want to dig his grave even deeper.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. According to my arithmetic, the number of members of the Government and their supporters outnumbers the Conservative Opposition.

Mr. Taylor: That is certainly not my arithmetic, Sir Myer, and I wonder whether you are adopting the metric system in a rather unusual way. I can see several of my hon. Friends present. But what is important, whether we agree on this matter or not, is that it is deplorable that on a Bill which the Government say is vital they cannot—[Interruption.] Is the Minister trying to say something?

Mr. Harry Ewing: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman's statement that there are several members of the official Opposition present is so far removed from reality as to be questionable, to say the least.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister is just being rather silly. Looking over my shoulder, I can see two of my hon. Friends present, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) has come in to join us, so we have another. But this is a Government Bill, a Bill


which they say is vital, a Bill which they say the people of Scotland support, yet we do not have one of their Back Benchers present to cheer the Government on. This is most unfortunate, especially when we are discussing a clause of such significance as Clause 18.
The Government must accept—I am sure that they will—that perhaps above all others this is a clause which we must get right. We must clearly establish what the demarcation is, and we must try to minimise whatever conflict there may be. With your long experience of local government, apart from parliamentary government, Sir Myer, you will be well aware that there may be occasions when, for example, the local authority in Glasgow can come into conflict with the Scottish Office, although there would be no question of that local authority having to share legislative powers. This is, I think, in the nature of things when questions of money and legislation arise. Even when reasonable people are involved, there can be conflict, and with unreasonable people, of course, the conflict can be considerable. We must, therefore, lay down the demarcation clearly.
We believe that Clause 18 presents many recipes for conflict. Neither in this clause nor anywhere else is there a clear statement that Parliament is supreme and that Acts of Parliament take precedence over Acts of the Assembly. When this question was discussed on the amendment, the Minister presented several arguments which, he said, would overcome the difficulty. He said that our amendment was unnecessary. I can only say that that is a rather unusual argument because, if it was unnecessary in his view, yet we regarded it as of substantial importance, the Minister should have made at least the gesture of accepting it.
However, the Minister put forward a number of other arguments. He said that we could rely on the override clause. The override clause is Clause 36, which we shall debate later. That clause does not give the Secretary of State unlimited powers to present to Parliament a Bill that he thinks should be overturned. It gives him limited powers concerning Assembly Bills containing provisions that might affect, directly or indirectly, a reserved matter and Bills that he believes would not be in the public interest if

enacted. Therefore, Clause 36 is not of universal application but can be used by the Government only in certain specific circumstances.
First, the Secretary of State must get the House to approve the overturning of the Bill. Secondly, the clause is limited to specific Bills, Bills which in the Government's view affect a reserved matter, and which in their view would not be in the public interest. We understand that a reserved matter is one that concerns Scotland but is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Therefore, although the Minister suggested that the override clause would sort the matter out, we see that it is not of universal application but is limited to specific categories of legislation.
The second thing that the Minister said was that we could rely on the ultra vires arrangement. But they are not of universal application. They refer only to Bills that the Assembly is seeking to put forward that are outwith the scope of its work as laid down in the Bill. The position here is similar to that of the override clause.
In addition, the ultra vires arrangements and, in particular, the override provisions come into effect only once a Bill has been passed by the Assembly. Suppose Parliament passed a Bill on rents of local authority houses to be applied throughout the United Kingdom and the Assembly brought forward a separate Bill that the Government thought should be overturned there would be a full discussion and the Scottish Bill would be passed by the Assembly, which would be a considerable recipe for conflict. We see that the Government's first two arguments do not have universal application.
The Government's third argument was that there could be entrenchment clauses. The Minister said that we could pass in the United Kingdom Parliament a Bill applying to Scotland or the whole United Kingdom and put into it a clause saying that in no circumstances could the Scottish Assembly overturn that Bill. That is indeed possible, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we in the House of Commons could do it. We could pass an Act tomorrow saying that the Scottish Assembly could never change it, but that, too, would be a recipe for conflict.
Does the Minister honestly believe that a Scottish Assembly seeking to put forward legislation on a particular matter would be happy if it heard that the Government proposed a Bill containing a clause that virtually prevented the Assembly from even having the chance to put forward legislation on that matter?
The Government's proposals will not resolve all demarcation problems and prevent all conflict. Therefore, we must try something more.
The Minister advanced another argument. He said "If you, the Conservatives and others making up the opposition to the Bill, are really so concerned, if you are really so anxious to do something about the demarcation issue, making clear that Parliament is supreme, why did you turn down Clause 1?" That argument was also advanced by some Members of the minority, fringe parties. We made absolutely clear our views on Clause 1. We rejected it because it was simply a pious-hope clause.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that he made a blunder on Clause 1? Having voted against it, his party then had to try to reintroduce it. There was consternation on the Tory Front Bench when those who sit on it realised exactly what they had done in voting against the unity of the United Kingdom and the supreme law-giving powers of Parliament at the same time. It was a shocking performance by the Conservatives.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would appear to be either blind or deaf —I am sure that he is not—for when we defeated Clause 1 there was great delight on the Conservative Benches. The reason was that we had taken the opportunity of pointing out to the people of Scotland that Clause 1, in our view, was a fraud, because the Government were claiming something which was not true, namely, that the Bill would
not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament".
It was simply a pious hope.

Mr. Dalyell: It is demonstrably a mathematical falsehood. It is simply not true.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has stronger opinions than my own but,

speaking for the Conservative Party as a whole, I can say that we certainly regarded the clause as expressing a pious hope.
The Minister will recall that when we were debating Clause 1 we took steps to try to strengthen it and to give it teeth. We put forward what we felt was a suitable amendment to it to ensure that it would be a solid enactment. Unfortunately, the Committee turned down our proposal, and for that reason we later rejected Clause 1. It would simply have expressed a pious hope.
The Minister has put forward what he regards as safeguards, but we think that they are not safeguards at all. They do not make absolutely clear where responsibilities lie, in our view, and they do not make clear where precedence lies.
Does not the Minister accept that we could have what would be virtually a ping-pong situation, as mentioned in the last debate? Parliament could put forward a Bill and the Assembly could put forward a Bill, and it seems that there would be nothing to stop its going backward and forward on two or three occasions. Even if it was not done as deliberately as that, there would undoubtedly he circumstances in which Acts of Parliament might appear to conflict with Acts of the Scottish Assembly.
I therefore put a straight question to the Minister. There may be an easy answer to it. If there is, I am not aware of it. If there were an Act of Parliament and a Scottish Assembly Act which on some particular matter appeared to conflict, what would happen when the issue went before a court of law? Is there a clear and precise answer to that? I am not aware of it from my reading of Clause 18. That answer should be determined straight away.
The Minister may think that this trouble would rarely arise, but I know how clever some lawyers can be in putting cases before courts. We have some of the most distinguished lawyers on our own Benches here. They argue cases with determination, vigour and accuracy, but not all lawyers are so entirely full of integrity. Sometimes there are lawyers who are just doing their best for a client! To that extent it is desperately important that it should be


absolutely clear where responsibility lies and where precedence lies.
It is also vital when we are giving these very substantial powers to legislate, with certain reservations, that it be made clear that the supreme responsibility for making law rests with Parliament here. That is why we felt that our Amendment No. 247 was entirely acceptable. We were seeking there to make it absolutely clear that Parliament retained the right to make any law for the United Kingdom or any part of it, including laws relating to matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly. We also said, in the second part of the amendment, that where any Act of Parliament——

The First Deputy Chairman: Clause 1 has been disposed of, as has Amendment No. 247. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the question whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Taylor: I had just appreciated that the hon. Member for Scotstoun is here. He was not present earlier. He has been a very regular attender of the Committee——

Mr. Small: rose——

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Once a clause or an amendment has been disposed of, hon. Members may not go back to it. At the moment, hon. Members may discuss only the contents of Clause 18. I make that ruling in case this position arises again.

Mr. Small: It is impious to say that I am the Member for Scotstoun. That constituency passed away following the recommendation of the Boundaries Commission. I am the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden.

Mr. Taylor: Having rejected Amendment No. 247, which we cannot discuss now, I am suggesting that unless the Government are prepared to insert something similar, we shall not regard this clause as acceptable.
We want an assurance from the Government that, perhaps at a later stage, they will write into the clause one or two clear and specific provisions. First, we want them to make absolutely clear that this Parliament retains the right to make legislation for all parts of the United

Kingdom, including those things which come within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Secondly, we want them to make clear that if there is any question of conflict, parliamentary laws passed in this House would take precedence. This should also apply to delegated legislation.
We are passing a desperately important clause and we believe that, unless we get the wording and the safeguards right, it will be a recipe for conflict. I am in no doubt that, unfortunately, the wording in the clause as it stands will be a recipe for conflict, because the demarcation is not absolutely clear, although it may be clear in the Minister's mind. It is not acceptable because there is no question that when it comes to a clash between laws, the clause is not clear to me and, I am sure, to the many others who will read it.
I therefore believe that the Minister should make a determined effort to make sure that he gets the wording right, bearing in mind that we may be embarking on a major new constitutional development. Unfortunately, I feel that the Government have not got the wording right. The Minister must endeavour to go some way towards meeting the genuine feelings of Opposition Members, who feel that there may be heated passions if and when the Assembly is established.
There could be the problem of having different parties in power in London and Edinburgh. I am sure the Minister will accept that, for example, we could have a Conservative Administration in Edinburgh and a Labour Government at Westminster. That is a possibility, and the two bodies will undoubtedly come into conflict with their general views on what the future of Scotland should be.
It is therefore desperately important that we try to minimise that conflict. We on this side of the House have made absolutely clear that we feel that the Bill as it now stands is a recipe for a constitutional disaster and for non-stop conflict. That is why we voted against the Bill. But as Parliament wished otherwise it is now important to make every possible endeavour to minimise the possibilities of such conflict.
Let us get the rules of the game absolutely clear. I understand that the Minister is a keen supporter of football. If


Clear rules are not laid down in football and if we do not have a referee who is generall acceptable—like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve)—a football match can develop into a shambles.
That is the fear of many hon. Members on this side of the House. We feel that the Scottish Assembly could develop into a shambles unless we have clear, precise rules of demarcation which are clearly laid down so that there is no misunderstanding on either side.
The Minister may say that we are looking for problems. But I can assure him that if the Assembly is established and he is still in a position of authority, he will have no need to look for problems. They will come showering down on him. We must have the right wording in the Bill now. The Minister must take more seriously the constructive and positive argument that has been put forward by the Conservative Opposition. If he cannot respond to that argument positively, I am afraid that we shall have to vote against the clause.

Mr. Crawford: My party is not totally overjoyed with the Bill but we commend the involvement of the Crown which the Government have written into Clause 18.
Many hon. Members have said how they have admired the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I suggest that his ingenuity is absolutely nothing when compared with the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I always understood that the English language meant what it said. Subsection (3) of the Conservative amendment to Clause 18 reads:
Parliament shall retain the right to make any law for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
That is not a million miles from the words of Clause 1, which the Conservatives voted against and which reads:
They do not affect the … supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
It is clear that the Conservatives have done a complete volte face after the farce of their vote last week, and I suggest that all that the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart has been doing is indulging in a scandalous and monstrous waste of time. He knows that the guil-

lotine comes down at 11 o'clock, and I assume that he is trying to avoid any debate on the proposed tax powers.
The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke earlier about referees. You, Sir Meyer, are the best referee that we have at the moment. In any event, I suggest that the hon. Member should have been sent off, if not by the referee, at least by his own team. In the past 19 minutes, he has been kicking the ball through his own goal. The sooner that we get on with our discussions of these amendments, the better.

Mr. Dalyell: Until my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) came into the Chamber, I was hoping to speak for the unanimous view of the Government Back Benches. Unfortunately, I can make no such claim. That plan has been foiled, like so many others.
I wish to use my time to look seriously at the likely behaviour of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I am glad that he is here because he will doubtless contradict me if I am wrong. I want to pose two situations to him neither of which is impossible. The first is that the hon. Gentleman is one of the leaders and supporters of a party which has power in Westminster and not in Scotland. The second, to which I shall come a little later, is that he is himself a Member of the Assembly.
We are on the theme of conflict. I spelled this out on page 252 of a certain book and, although it is a little indelicate to read from it, I think that I ought to quote two sentences from it;
If, on the other hand, a left-wing Assembly in Edinburgh tried to force independent schools in Scotland to go comprehensive—and the Conservatives were in power in London—it is hard to imagine Edward Taylor, MP, not leading an indignant delegation begging Mrs. Thatcher to do something about it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Author!

Mr. Dalyell: I am too modest to mention the author.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Heath!

Mr. Dalyell: No. It is not his book.
This is a situation which is all too real, and it is one of the ingredients of conflict. If the hon. Member for Cathcart was in a minority in a Scottish Assembly and in a majority in a British


Government, whenever the Assembly took any action in terms of education, housing or health which went against his wishes, he would run to Downing Street, bang on the door of No. 10 to demand an interview with his leader, were she to be Prime Minister, and ask her to overrule those silly chumps in the Scottish Assembly. I cannot imagine the hon. Member for Cathcart not doing that. He is an active politician, and any active politician would try to do it. Even if he did not want to do it, he would have to, otherwise he would be told by his supporters that he was being inactive. He would have people such as James Anderson knocking on his door asking why he was not trying to overrule the Scottish Assembly.
That is the reality of the situation. Does the hon. Member for Cathcart deny it? It is in his nature to do it. That is the kind of politician he is. That is why he gets a lot of support from people. Assuming that he does not deny it, let us say that there is a real basis of conflict here.
Then I take situation No. 2 in which the hon. Member for Cathcart is a Member of a devolved Assembly. It is in the very nature of Assemblymen wherever they go to spend their time arguing the importance of the institution to which they happen to belong. I know this happens. Often I do not approve of it, but I know that a great deal of time in the European Assembly is spent trying to increase our own powers. It is in the nature of the beast that if that person is a member of the Assembly he will be arguing his corner for financial power in the Assembly. The hon. Member for Cathcart——

The First Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman deals with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), perhaps he will try to bring the Committee back to the debate on whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill. That is what I am concerned with.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I am coming back to the question of conflict. Conflict was the whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am seeking to deal fairly, and not to the hon. Gentleman's advantage or disadvantage, with the situation.

If the hon. Gentleman were an Assemblyman, he would be trying to fulfil the promises made in Cathcart—or promises made by the three Members for that area because, as he has told us, it would take three people to do the job—and he would be demanding financial power no less strongly than would SNP Members, or my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), or anyone else there. He would be demanding financial power to carry out the promises he had made.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman referred a little earlier to Europe. Will he accept that the great advantage in the European situation is that demarcation between national Governments and the European Parliament is clearly and precisely laid down, and the problems are equally clear. But does he not accept that the difference between Clause 18 and the European situation is that Clause 18 and the Bill are not precise enough?

Mr. Dalyell: Not only are the demarcation lines much clearer, but there is no major party in the European Assembly that is absolutely committed to the breakup of the European Community.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is so committed.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, that may apply to the hon. Gentleman, but not one major party in Europe—the Democrats, Socialists or even the Italian Communists—is committed to the break-up of the European Community. In the case that is before us the situation is quite different. One major party will be dedicated to the break-up of this kind of arrangement. If the hon. Member for Cathcart were an Assemblyman, he, as every other Con servative, Liberal, Labour, Scottish Labour or Scottish Nationalist, would be arguing his corner for more powers and certainly more money. Therefore, we shall return ad nauseam to all the complaints the hon. Gentleman will then make about the parsimony of the English Treasury in Great George Street. Those demands for more power and more money will be made. They are the ingredients of breakup. That is why in this discussion on Clause 18 we are dealing with arrangements for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that he would ask me one straight question. When that happened, it crossed my mind what the other questions would be like.
The question he did ask related to the position if there were an alleged inconsistency between an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and an Act of the Scottish Assembly. The answer is that that would be construed according to the ordinary rules of construction in the courts, in the same way as they would construe any alleged inconsistencies between two United Kingdom Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister says that the normal rules would apply. Is he saying that there is no question of an Act of this Parliament having supremacy over an Act in the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Smith: The Acts of the Assembly will be treated as having the same effect as Acts of Parliament. A different situation may arise if there is an entrenched provision in a United Kingdom Act. However, I think the matter is clear, and alleged inconsistencies between a provision in a Scottish Assembly Act and a United Kingdom Act would be treated in the same way as if two United Kingdom Acts were read together. There is no great difficulty about that aspect.
Some hon. Members may wish to spend a lot of time on the debate on the Clause rather than discuss the amendments and if that is the way they want to handle the Committee, I must accept it.

Mr. Britton: If there were an Assembly Act and a United Kingdom Act that were clearly inconsistent, and if the United Kingdom Act had been passed later, would it not be right that the Assembly Act would prevail?

Mr. Smith: I have said that the normal rules of construction would apply. It is not wise to go into hypothetical situations. The hon. Gentleman is referring to later Acts taking precedence, which is one of the rules, and I imagine that it would apply.
The hon. Member for Cathcart talked about recipes for conflict and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian

(Mr. Dalyell) seemed to be saying that the hon. Member for Cathcart was a walking recipe for conflict in himself. That is not exactly fair to the hon. Member for Cathcart. If that is a description of the hon. Gentleman, I cannot imagine how to describe my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian in the context of the Bill. We do not advance the matter by such personal considerations.
Clause 18 confers legislative competence on the Scottish Assembly. The hon. Member for Cathcart raised questions about demarcation. If he were talking about the allocation of responsibilities between the Assembly and this Parliament, the answer is that those are dealt with by other provisions of the Bill. The control mechanisms on vires and override are dealt with in other clauses.
However, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee back to Clause 18 which says that the Scottish Assembly will have legislative competence, subject to some other restrictions contained in Clause 19.

Mr. Dalyell: It was not that I was being personal about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), and I do not think that he took it that way. I was hoping to describe how an active politician, given these far from hypothetical situations, would behave in real life.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a vivid imagination and gave effect to it in his intervention, but that does not help a workmanlike Committee to take a workmanlike look at the Bill.
I have heard many hon. Members saying that they want to take an active part in the Committee stage of this Bill and the longer that we spend on the debate on the Clause the less time we shall have later. All hon. Members know that. We listened to a long speech from the hon. Member for Cathcart and I am sure that he would not deny that he expatiated at length.
We believe it right that the Assembly should have legislative powers and there would be little point in devolution without them. The Front Bench opposite appears to want some form of devolution that has neither executive nor legislative powers. I wonder what is the form of


devolution to which the Conservatives are committed in principle. The Government stand for legislative and executive devolution, and in this part of the Bill we are dealing with the powers for legislative devolution. If the Bill is to

mean anything at all, the clause must stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 129.

Division No. 24]
AYES
[9.8 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Grant, John (Isington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Parker, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hatton, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Henderson, Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Bean, R. E.
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rose, Paul B.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sever, John


Buchanan, Richard
Janner, Greville
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sillars, James


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clemitson, Ivor
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cohen, Stanley
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Crawford, Douglas
Luard, Evan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cryer, Bob
MacCormick, Iain
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dalyell, Tam
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watt, Hamish


English, Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mitchell, Austin
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Molloy, William
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Flannery, Martin
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Noble, Mike
Woof, Robert


George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon



Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Jim Marshall.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairgrieve, Russell


Alison, Michael
Buck, Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Benyon, W.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fox, Marcus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cope, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Drayson, Burnaby
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Leon
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Goodhew, Victor




Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Sinclair, Sir George


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hodgson, Robin
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Holland, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spence, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sproat, Iain


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan, Geraint
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stokes, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Sir George Young and Lord James Douglas Hamilton.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Marten, Neil

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This clause sets out the arrangements for the legislative competence of the Assembly. It states:
A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
Schedule 2 of the Bill sets out the arrangements for working out what is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
What happens if there is an error? We know that mistakes can happen. What would happen if an Assembly Act were passed, approved and accepted as being within the legislative competence of the Assembly and later, through the operation of particular powers, it was discovered that part of that Act was not within the legislative competence of the Assembly? Can the Government do anything at a later stage after the Bill has received its Royal Assent?
The Minister might say that Parliament could pass an Act to deal with the

situation. Would that be the only way in which the Government could do something about it? Let us suppose that the Assembly passes a housing Act with 10 sections. Let us suppose that it is believed to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly but that, perhaps as a result of judicial determination or an action against a local authority, it later appears to the Government that one section is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Can the Government do anything about it? The answer might be to present an Act in this House to overturn the provisions of that section. Is that the only safeguard or is there some other restrospective action that would put right the error?
My second question is about arrangements that might be made if only part of an Assembly Act is outwith the legislative competence of the Assembly. Is it possible to refer part of the Bill to the Judicial Committee? One could say that only one section should be referred and the Committee may report back that that particular section is outwith the legislative competence of the Assembly.
The end of Clause 19(2) states:
references in this Act to a Bill within the legislative competence of the Assembly are references to a Bill which, if it became a Scottish Assembly Act, would be wholly within the legislative competence of the Assembly.


What happens if only part of the Act is found to be outwith the legislative cornpehmce of the Assembly? Does the rest of the Act go forward or would the Assembly have to start again?
My third question is brief. What is the provision for hybridity, which is a complex House of Commons issue? Would the question of hybridity of Assembly legislation be considered by the Minister in relation to legislative competence or by the Judicial Committee? What action is taken by the Minister on legislative competence if a Bill proves to be hybrid?

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman has asked me what happens in the case of a mistake. It is always difficult to anticipate mistakes, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will notice that the clause says:
A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
What we are doing is restricting the power of the Scottish Assembly to legislate to matters within its competence. If there is a question about the competence of the Assembly, no doubt the Assembly will be advised by its own legal advisers as to what is within its competence. Then the Secretary of State is under an obligation to consider the Bill under Clause 20, and if he is of the opinion that it is outwith the Assembly's competence, it will go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for determination.
If, after that process of scrutiny has been gone through, there remains a provision which is, in the opinion of perhaps a citizen, outwith the legislative competence, there is provision later in the Bill for post-Assent challenge in the courts. That would be open to a citizen. But if the United Kingdom Government fail to operate the provision under Clause 20 and wish to correct the matter, they will be able to legislate about it, because this Parliament remains sovereign. We have already gone through that matter before.

Mr. Graham Page: Would it then be necessary to have an indemnity Act to indemnify those who had acted under an invalid Act of the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Smith: Whether it would be necessary would be a matter that would have to be considered at the time. We thought it right that there should be a power of post-Assent challenge, because the Acts of the Assembly are not sovereign. To that extent it seemed right to make that provision. All these provisions have to be operated by human beings, and we must make the best provisions that we can. We think that we have provided reasonable checks by very precise definitions of the competence of the Assembly by the Bill and for the mechanisms of control by override and the scrutinies of
vires.

Mr. Powell: Would it follow from that that on the challenge of a citizen the view taken by the Judicial Committee could be overthrown by the ordinary courts?

Mr. Smith: We shall discuss these matters when we come to the provisions about the post-Assent challenge, but the ordinary courts will make their own determination of the matters raised before them under the Bill. No doubt they will take into account the views of the Judicial Committee when they give their determination on the matter if the Judicial Committee has made a determination on the matter before the ordinary courts.
I think that the number of matters that will be referred to the Judicial Committee will be very small. One does not expect the Assembly to wish to legislate on matters clearly beyond its competence, because it would be checked by the Judicial Committee. The existence of this checking provision is probably a salutary way of reminding the Assembly that it operates within certain fields of competence.
I would not expect there to be many references to the Judicial Commitee of the Privy Council, because there would be discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, and the United Kingdom Government would be aware of what the Assembly wished to legislate about and would no doubt seek, if they took the view that the Assembly was acting without the vires, to point that out to it informally. It is only if there is an extensive and severe disagreement about a provision that has some ambiguity about it that


an issue would be referred to the Judicial Committee.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned referring part of the Bill. That is quite true. If the Secretary of State sees that there is one provision within the Bill, he does not have to refer the whole Bill. He can refer the part of it that he thinks is ultra vires to the Assembly. In the event of there being determination by the Judicial Committee that it was ultra vires the Bill, one goes back to the Scottish Assembly which considers the matter further, and it is then put forward again by the Secretary of State for Royal Assent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned hybridity. This has a certain topicality. I am not sure what the answer to that point is. It is rather complicated and perhaps involves the rules for the future that the Scottish Assembly might establish for its own procedure.
9.30 p.m.
Hybridity is a procedural matter and when it arises here the House considers it as a matter of procedure. The general line in the Bill is that the Assembly itself will decide a great deal of its procedure There is some difference in this respect between the Scotland and Wales Bill, and the shorter provision in the Scotland Bill. We do not know what procedure the Scottish Assembly will follow for Bills, and it is impossible for me to answer what its rules on hybridity may be. We cannot specify them now.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to make specific rules on hybridity for application in the Assembly, but I repeat that the Assembly itself will determine its own procedure by its own standing orders. I believe that to be the right attitude. In writing its rules no doubt it will look at this House's rules on hybridity and consider whether to follow them. I do not think that I can go much further on that question now.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said on these matters, in particular about the question of error. He said that he did not want to take the question of hybridity much further, but it is important. We shall have an opportunity to return to the subject later.
Has the hon. Gentleman any ideas about private and public legislation? Does he take the view that the Assembly in its legislative competence will be able to make its own rules on private and public legislation? This is important. It might decide not even to draw a dividing line between the two. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the question of whether there should be private legislation within the legislative competence would be a matter for the Assembly? Or does he contemplate that the Assembly would not have the power to pass private legislation?
I hope that the Minister will be kind enough later to answer the point, which I understand is detailed, about hybridity, but can he say something now about private legislation? Does he consider that the Assembly will itself determine whether it divides Bills into those which are private legislation and those which are public, or that it will not be a legislative forum for private legislation?

Mr. Smith: There are provisions later in the Bill relating to private legislation, and I will bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind so that we can give him as detailed an answer as possible then.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It will be within your recollection that at 3.30 this afternoon, on a point of order, I asked, among other things, about the question of appeals. I do not know whether this is the right moment to raise the matter. May I ask whether for criminal cases the final appeal is to the High Court of Justiciary and in civil cases to the House of Lords? I thought that the matter came under Clause 20, but it seems that it is being dealt with now.

Mr. Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We have to try to keep the clauses in separate compartments, and the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not relate to Clause 19. I shall be happy to answer his questions at the appropriate point.

Question put and agreed to.

clause19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 134, in page 41, line 31, leave out
' subject to paragraph 8 of this Schedule '.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 136, in page 42, leave out lines 28 to 34.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 134 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 136. As a preface, I should say that now that we have accepted Clause 18, including subsection (2), we have to look at Schedule 2 in that light.
Of course, Clause 18(2) provides that a Scottish Assembly may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament—that is an Act of Parliament of Westminster. But that is to be subject to Clause 19 which states that the Scottish Assembly can establish law only if it is within, or to the extent that it is within, the legislative competence of the Assembly. To find out what is meant by the legislative competence of the Assembly one goes to Clause 19(2), from which one is directed to Schedule 2. So at last I have come to the point. We are seeking to amend the schedule which is the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly.
Paragraph 2 of that schedule states,
Subject to paragraph 8 of this Schedule, a provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it extends to any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland.
So, combining that with paragraph 1 of the schedule, one finds that the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly is to legislate upon devolved matters which affect Scotland only. That is a simple statement. The devolved matters are set out in a later schedule. But I would have hoped that the House would accept paragraph 2 merely saying that a provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it extends to any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. No matter, for the moment, that it be on devolved matters. If it is on devolved matters, it should refer only to Scotland.
I should have thought that that was the whole intention of the Bill. Its aim is to set up a legislative Assembly for Scotland to legislate for Scotland. Yet those few words at the beginning of the paragraph bring in the small print. We turn over the ticket to read the small print on the back, and there we find paragraph 8. It says that paragraph 2 shall not
 prevent any provisions from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if those provisions—
and then there are two sub-paragraphs which drive a coach and four through the whole of the provision that the Assembly shall legislate only for Scotland.
These paragraphs say that the Scottish Assembly shall have the power to legislate in any other way if that is
necessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions … or … are otherwise incidental to or consequential on other provisions.
So if anything can be said to be necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential on some legislation which may be one of the devolved matters or which may refer to Scotland only, it will be within the competence of the Scottish Assembly so to legislate outside the devolved matters and outside Scotland.
This is the terror of this paragraph. It throws the gates wide open for legislation by the Scottish Assembly, a one-House Assembly, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. True, it says that the Assembly must legislate on devolved matters only. But suppose that the Assembly legislates on some of the devolved matters set out in Part I of Schedule 10. There are set out no fewer than 26 groups of subjects on which the Scottish Assembly can legislate. Should it legislate on any one of those, and think that it is necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential to say that the same law should apply, for the sake of uniformity, to England and Wales, then under paragraph 8 it is quite within its competence to do so.
Let us look at the devolved matters in Part I of Schedule 10. Group 1, on health, lists a number of items, from which I pick abortion. Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly decided to legislate for abortion on demand. There might be a flood of people crossing the border to get abortion on demand and it might


be very expedient, therefore, to have some law in the rest of the United Kingdom to stop that and to ensure uniformity. According to my ordinary interpretation of paragraph 8, that would be consequential on the Act of the Scottish Assembly. If it were not consequential it might well be expedient or necessary and certainly incidental.
Group 2 deals with social welfare, including children and adoption. Let us suppose that we continue to have different adoption laws in Scotland and England. Might there not be an effort to take advantage of one law which was more generous than the other? For the sake of uniformity it would certainly be expedient to have the same adoption laws in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Group 3 states that libraries, museums and art galleries are within the competence of the Scottish Assembly and it adds the teaching profession to the list. Are teachers in Scotland to have different qualifications from teachers in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Russell Johnston: They have now.

Mr. Page: At the moment there are different qualifications, and many people think it is most inexpedient that qualifications for teachers in the two countries are different. This is a matter of interpretation of what is necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman may lay a great many ills at the door of the Bill, but it is somewhat illogical to complain that it might have the consequence of having different qualifications for teachers when that is the current situation.

Mr. Page: I acknowledge that there is a difference. In many cases it is thought that the difference between the law applying in Scotland and in England and Wales is very inexpedient. [Interruption.] This is a matter of opinion. It is said that this would not be inexpedient.
The list contains 26 groups of items which can be legislated on by the Scottish Assembly. If legislation is passed on these subjects in Scotland it may be very expedient for the legislation to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. If that is so, the Scottish Assembly has competence to legislate for the rest of

the United Kingdom and perhaps even for Northern Ireland. Here we are setting up a separate legislative body, an entirely fresh kind of legislative body in that it is a one-Chamber legislature, to legislate not merely for Scotland alone.
It is true that the Bill begins by implying in the various clauses and schedules that the Scottish Assembly is a legislative Assembly for Scotland, but the drafting is rather peculiar. Clause 18(2) states that:
 A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
We start from a positive statement there that the Scottish Assembly could alter Westminster Acts of Parliament. It is true that the clause goes on to qualify it to the effect that the legislation must be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and it defines legislative competence, but, that being said, there is then the exception in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which I have endeavoured to describe.
While that exception stands in the Bill—Amendment No. 136 would delete it—the Scottish Assembly has immense powers to legislate for the rest of the United Kingdom.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was right in a way to interrupt the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the education question, but, if I may say so, what was then said was not quite the whole story. A great sense of grievance has been felt and has been exploited—indeed, it has been exploited—by the Scottish National Party among primary school teachers in Scotland, who are told time and again that they are paid less than their counterparts in England are paid. How often have we heard that in SNP propaganda and argument. There is no question about it.
The full story is that we in Scotland get a fair share at present, and if primary schoolteachers are paid less, our honours graduates, in particular, and certain other categories are paid more—and for some categories significantly more. It is in the nature of human beings that we keep rather quiet about those areas in which we have advantage and we make a great noise about those in which we suppose ourselves to be disadvantaged.
As I say, these differences have frequently been exploited, and they are a marvellous source of political propaganda. They raise difficulties of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in general terms, and I think, therefore, that his argument cannot be quite so easily dismissed.
I shall stick to one point now because I have been on my feet a great deal today. I refer again to the disbelief in the idea of having devolved legislation at all in a subordinate Parliament within a unitary State. I put the matter in this way. The Assembly may pass a great number of laws on housing. I have sat, as has the right hon. Member for Crosby, I believe, through the proceedings on, I think, two Rent Bills. The truth is that the laws which the Assembly would like to pass if it is to carry out the promises made, especially in areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) on Clydeside, will not meet the problems which they are designed to tackle unless a great deal of money is forthcoming.
I do not for a moment believe that the people of Scotland want too many laws, and least of all do they want a rearranging of legal chairs in a kind of game of musical chairs. But the things that we very understandably want done or improved all cost money. I make no apology, therefore, for coming back again to the point that laws of the kind which the Assembly would pass would be extremely costly.
The Assembly will not be responsible for raising the cash. The cash all comes from the block grant. Thus, either its laws would be seen to be a dismal failure or, having in all possibility overspent, the Assembly would go to Great George Street demanding far more than its share of the United Kingdom allocation to housing resources.
At this stage of the argument, I wonder what English Ministers responsible for housing and the like would say. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, the Minister responsible for sport, on the Front Bench. I imagine that he would have something to say if that happened
Furthermore, there is the problem raised in the letter from my young constituent, Mr. Brian Fairley. If the Great George Street Treasury was presented with some kind of fait accompli, which is all too possible in one area, that would mean a shortage of block grant funds in another area. If there were massive overspending on housing, health, education or whatever in Scotland, other areas would suffer. Then there would be a hue and cry to find out why our level of education spending, health spending or whatever was not up to the standards of England.
All this is not fanciful. It is the realistic way in which matters work out when there is an unworkable subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary Kingdom.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is not only fanciful but unrealistic and unfair to suggest that the behaviour of the Members of the Assembly and the Executive created within the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to bring about the debts that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that the behaviour of SNP Members has been exactly responsible, within the hon. Gentleman's description of responsibility. I am not blaming them, because that is what they are in business for—not to be responsible in making demands on Westminster. If we were all solemn responsible men, we might not have got into this situation in the first place.

The Chairman: Order. In his enthusiasm, the hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the amendment. He knows that I can be tolerant when I am in the Chair, but he is going outside the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will obviously agree with your intervention, Mr. Murton. It suits the Government to stick to narrow issues, to try to compartmentalise the Bill. If we simply take each narrow issue on the guillotine, the Bill may look possible, but we must return time and again to how people would behave, given a subordinate Parliament. I dispute that there is any chance of their behaving in a financially responsible way, because they would be in business to ask for more and more.


There would be an overwhelming temptation, to which any Member of that Assembly would have to succumb, to ask for more from the block grant. That is the difficulty with the block grant.
I return to my point, that if it is thought that the Assembly will simply be dealing with legislation in a vacuum, altering laws without doing something, without improving housing conditions, for example, it will be a marvellous talking shop. The Assembly Members can alter housing laws for as long as they like, but that will not greatly impress people in Scotland. The people will be impressed only if something is done, and doing something costs money. Money is at the root of the whole matter.
Here we return to the block grant and the endless argument. If things go wrong and the laws are not adequately implemented, who will be blamed? The blame will be put on the parsimony of the English Treasury. That is why we once again return to the unworkability of this scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to return to the amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has done a considerable service in moving it and explaining it as he did. However, I must say in defence of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), with regard to many of the devolved matters in Schedule 10, that I believe that the variety that we have in different parts of the United Kingdom is to the advantage of everyone in that it reflects the different character, background and tradition of those areas.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is right to raise this matter. Where there are instances in which there may be a desire, or where it is expedient to try to bring practices into line, the Bill as drafted gives a very much wider jurisdiction to the Scottish Assembly than may seem to be justified by the bare words of the paragraph in the schedule. For that reason I think it is right to raise the matter.
I approach it from a slightly different angle from that of my right hon. Friend—less from a fear of the jurisdiction of the Scottish Assembly extending to England and much more from the point of view of whether the inclusion of a provision such as this in the Bill preju-

dices the proper operation of the Assembly. If the Assembly is to have powers and jurisdiction extending beyond Scotland, it is not in the least surprising that there should be resentment at the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. Therefore, in as much as it affects the acceptability of some of the provisions of the Bill, the Government ought to explain to the Committee why they have included this provision.
There is one instance where I can see that there could be need for a power of this nature. As I can think of only one instance, I wonder very much why this wider power has had to be put into the Bill. The instance is in relation to salmon and freshwater fisheries. As hon. Members will know, we have a river called the Tweed. There is another called the Esk, on the border between Scotland and England. In those cases where we have legislation before this House, under its proper jurisdiction, in relation to salmon and freshwater fisheries, it is not possible to have such legislation automatically certified. Although the Bills are promoted by Scottish Ministers, there are often provisions within them relating to the fisheries in the Tweed, the Esk and the Solway, which result in those Bills having an effect beyond the borders of Scotland.
As I have said, I can only think of the one instance of salmon and freshwater fisheries. I cannot think of any other instances where, within the competence of the Scottish Assembly, as laid down in this Bill, it would be necessary to legislate in the very wide terms of Schedule 2(8). If it can be narrowed down to specific issues, such as salmon or freshwater fisheries—there may be other instances which the Minister may mention to the House—I should have thought that it would be very much better and would make the Bill very much more acceptable, particularly to colleagues south of the border, if the exceptions were made specific to particular areas or particular issues rather than having these very wide powers in paragraph 8.
I therefore support my hon. Friend, and I would be very reluctant to allow the schedule to proceed without a very much more detailed and precise assurance from the Minister as to its purpose. Even if there is a purpose along the


narrow lines that I suggested, consideration should be given to whether these narrower lines should be specified rather than the very wide powers which it is absolutely right to question at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I have two or three short points to make. At this juncture, especially following the remarks by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in raising the problem of Schedule 2(8), and also in relation to the remarks made by the hon. and persistent Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I feel that the critics are perfectly entitled to suggest that there are problems of conflict and that there will be problems of conflict, probably of an ongoing nature, during the existence of the Assembly. But it must not be forgotten that the Assembly is being created because there are problems of conflict now.
10.0 p.m.
Hon. Members should not suggest that the Assembly once created and once given powers to do different things, would go off its head completely and do all sorts of extraordinary things. Following my intervention, the hon. Member for West Lothian said that there would naturally be a tendency to ask for more, like Oliver Twist. Yes, there would be that tendency. But what he said previously was that Great George Street, as he is wont to call it, may well be faced with a fait accompli and would consciously, purposely and intentionally overspend. I do not believe that the persons elected to the Assembly would behave in that fashion any more than I believe that they would do all sorts of extraordinary things that the right hon. Member for Crosby fears.
Like the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I suspect that this small paragraph has a very limited effect. It is within my recollection that the Highlands and Islands Development Bill contained provisions enabling the Highlands and Islands Development Board to do things in London because it might have to have an office in London and have exhibitions and do all sorts of other things in London.
Paragraph 8 says that these provisions must be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Those provisions are clearly defined and well laid down elsewhere in the Bill. I do not wish to pursue the matter, but I wish that when making perfectly proper arguments hon. Members would not exaggerate so grossly.

Mr. Rifkind: Without any risk of exaggeration, I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister and assume that neither he nor his colleagues have paid very much attention to Schedule 2 in its present form. Had they paid any significant amount of attention to it I suggest that they could not possibly have allowed it to remain in its present form.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), if anything, understated the case for his amendment because the schedule, particularly paragraph 8, gives to the Scottish Assembly as a devolved legislature far more power than an independent Scottish Parliament or independent Scottish State would have. Although it is in a very limited sphere, the simple fact is—I am sure the Minister will not deny it—that if a matter comes within paragraph 8, the Assembly can change the law in England as well as in Scotland. That is a power which an independent Scotland would not have.
But for reasons that we do not yet know, the Government are proposing to give this power to the Scottish Assembly. Obviously it is a restricted area where that power can be exercised. I said that I would not exaggerate the case, but it is important to realise the limited areas where this power can be used.
One cannot be accused of being fanciful in making this case. Presumably if there were no such areas the provision would not have been included in the first place. It must be intended that in certain areas the Assembly can change the law of England as well as the law of Scotland.
According to Schedule 10, this power can be used with regard to pollution, erosion and flooding. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 allows the Assembly to pass laws which will change the law of England where it is necessary or expedient for the enforcement of other provisions. In the areas of pollution, erosion or flooding it is perfectly possible that in


order to make pollution or anti-flooding legislation in Scotland effective it is necessary that the regulations should also cover part of the coast of England adjacent to the Scottish-English border. Such a situation is perfectly conceivable. Obviously that is a real problem.
The question then becomes: what is the best way of resolving that problem? Is it, as the Government propose, to give power to the Scottish Assembly to change the law of parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland? I suggest not, for the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. The answer is simply that if there are certain matters where in order to make the Scottish Assembly's authority to deal with devolved matters effective it is necessary that the law of England should be changed, then that must be a matter of discussion and negotiation between the Scottish Assembly and the British Government. That is the way in which these matters must be handled.
If it is sensible and reasonable for certain changes to be made in the law of England, so long as this is the only Parliament for England, only this Parliament should have the power to change those laws. If we talk of matters which are merely consequential and if the Assembly believes that it would be reasonable for certain minor laws affecting England to be changed, the proper course is for the member of the Scottish Executive responsible to have discussions with the Secretary of State responsible for these matters in England and, by discussion and negotiation, to seek to persuade the British Government to introduce similar or consequential legislation in this House to effect the changes desired. It could be done without raising the legitimate anger

of hon. Members representing English constituencies.
It is indefensible that an Assembly elected by the electorate of one part of the United Kingdom, and only in that part of the United Kingdom, should he able to change the laws of other territories, and there is a way in which this real problem can be resolved.
I hope that the Minister will not dig in his heels and say that the Bill must continue in its present form without qualification. If there are consequential changes required in English law, the proper course will be for the British Government to have negotiations with the Scottish Executive. In 99 cases out of 100, I am sure that a compromise will be achieved, and the necessary consequential legislation can then be introduced in this House. That is the proper way to do it.
In its present form, the Bill gives the Assembly a power which I am sure that no one in Scotland will suggest should be available to a Scottish Assembly elected only by the electorate of Scotland. It is a quite unnecessary provision, and it is one which will create unnecessary problems for the Government. They have quite enough problems as it is. I am sure that they would prefer at least to do without this one.

Mr. Small: We are dealing with paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I do not know how familiar right hon. and hon. Members are with the works of Wordsworth, but let me quote "Yarrow Unvisited":
Float double, swan and shadow".
Everything that we have here in the schedule is a shadow. What takes place here will be transferred to Edinburgh. Paragraph 8 really means that which is cognate and non-cognate to existing legislation.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the scope of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 should be narrowed.
What is significant about this debate is that all Opposition speakers, whether they support or oppose devolution, have asked the Minister to accept this amendment. For that reason, I think that the hon. Gentleman should take note of what has been said. Of course, there is an exception in the sense that no SNP Member has asked him to accept the amendment. That does not surprise me. As drawn at present, the Bill is the perfect recipe for major and continuing conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this Parliament. If there is conflict, it will suit the book of the Scottish nationalists perfectly. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make a concession.
There have been references to Schedule 10. I hope the Minister will explain in rather more detail the implications for certain other aspects than those referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). What about the tenure and management of agricultural land? What about forestry and afforestation?
Let me expand a little on that second example. I understand that in any event forestry interests in Scotland have already asked that they should continue to come under United Kingdom control. Under Schedule 10 and Schedule 2(8), far from those interests in Scotland remaining under United Kingdom control, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a good proportion of the forestry and afforestation activities in England could come under Scottish control. There is nothing to stop the Scottish Assembly legislating in such a way as to enable the purchase of forestry interests in England. Perhaps I am wrong, but that seems a not unreasonable interpretation of the Bill as at present drawn. I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, he will at least agree to re-examine this matter.

Mr. Sproat: I had not intended to speak on this amendment until I heard the argument so persuasively advanced

by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). It struck me what ludicrous matters we are debating on this occasion. We are proposing that people in Edinburgh should be able to make laws which apply to people in London simply because they are consequential on the laws made in Edinburgh. That must be madness. One can almost find no end to the madness that this situation would create.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said—and I took down his words: "I do not believe the behaviour of the Assembly would be so irresponsible". He was then referring to debts, but I would set no bounds on the irresponsibility of SNP Members deliberately to create trouble in a Scottish Assembly in order to cause the maximum amount of difficulty here. Perhaps I am wrong even to talk about their irresponsibility. We all know that it is their raison d'être to break up the United Kingdom. If they could make laws that so affected the people of England, surely this would lead to discontent and eventually to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Do the hon. Gentleman's remarks indicate that he firmly believes that the Scottish Assembly would have a majority of SNP Members?

Mr. Sproat: That is not my conclusion, but no doubt there are a sufficient number of misguided Scots who would seek to elect one or two SNP Members. But it will not be only SNP Members who will drive these wedges between England and Scotland. The SNP Members will be taking such action for one reason, but Labour and Conservative Members, too, will be taking a similar view. It will be carried out on an Oliver Twist syndrome—in other words, it will be said "If the United Kingdom Treasury will give us £100, we shall hold out for £120." It will be a double recipe for disaster because we shall have to finance all the extra legislation as between England and Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned the subject of salmon fisheries, which was a very good example to cite. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) referred to


forestry matters. I can quote another example—the battles over public lending rights which so interested Parliament at the time. What will happen if the Scottish Assembly is foolish enough to decide to establish a public lending right? I appreciate that there are hon. Members who believe that that would not be an irresponsible measure.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a very good one.

Mr. Sproat: It is a stupid measure, but not irresponsible. The House of Commons chucked it out a long time ago.

Mr. Cormack: It was talked out.

Mr. Sproat: I talked as much as I could, but it was only when the Deputy Chief Whip said "If you shut up we will drop the measure" that we decided to shut up, and they dropped it.

Mr. Rifkind: Why not try that tactic with this Bill?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I am trying to put behind me the unhappy memories of long ago. Looking to the future, we may well have a Scottish Assembly which, in its wisdom or unwisdom, will decide to bring in a public lending right. That is quite a possibility. It is a possibility, because the Assembly would have the power to do that. Apart from the fact that it would cost a lot of money, what would the effect be? It would mean that one would have to go to the publisher, Collins, which is a Scottish firm but English-based and in London, or to Macmillan's publishing house, whose headquarters is also in London—although I am not sure whether Collins' headquarters has remained in Glasgow. However, let us say Macmillan's. I mentioned Collins only as a sop to the SNP to show how far Scottish influence had spread, but I regret my kindness to the SNP now.
The publishers would have to be told that the Scottish Assembly had brought a public lending right into effect, which would mean that the publishers would have to pay its authors extra money in a possibly different way and the law in the rest of the United Kingdom would have to be changed with regard to those authors whose works appear on shelves

in Scotland and are published by publishers based in London.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is forging an unbreakable alliance between the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Sproat: I do not quite see that. Sorry, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I apologise for being a bit slow.

Mr. Dalyell: Should not the hon. Gentleman mention forestry, because both public interests, in the form of the Forestry Commission, and private interests have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who knows a great deal about these things, to bring in an amendment to exclude forestry from the devolved subjects? [Interruption.]

Mr. Sproat: I hear some of my hon. Friends ask what that has to do with the public lending right. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is thinking of forestry producing timber, producing pulp for paper. I take the point.
I have published a number of books and I should benefit from a public lending right, but I would rather lose that financial benefit than have such a stupid measure on the statute book. Publishers in London would have to alter all their accounting procedures with regard to authors whose works were stocked from Scottish shelves. No doubt, if the SNP had its way, it would be Scottish authors only who would receive the right, or would it be only those living in Scotland, or—as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) used to say—only those who had a Scottish grandmother, who would count as Scotsmen? I can imagine the appalling difficulties into which we should get as a result of trying to enforce the crazy laws that a Scottish Assembly might introduce. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) must not interrupt me too often or I might be sharper with him than I have been so far.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will stop his social security!

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend brings me to a new line of thought. I should be extremely interested to see how the social services might work in Scotland under the control of a Scottish Assembly that might bring in such benefits as telephones for old folk living alone in Scotland. That would be an excellent measure and I should be in favour of it, but it would have an interesting effect on the finances of the GPO in Scotland, and that could have an effect on the GPO in other parts of the United Kingdom, and we should therefore have to have modifications in the United Kingdom law.

Mr. Rifkind: Does my hon. Friend realise that under the Bill the Home Secretary would lose the power to control summer time in Scotland? It would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to change the time of day, and that could have consequential implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sproat: That is an extraordinarily important point because although the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) failed to vote on the Scotland (Local Government) Act, he did vote about changing summer time. My hon. Friend has a good case for thinking that the Assembly might bring forward such a provision. We could have the extraordinary situation of it being 1 o'clock in London when it was 12 o'clock in Edinburgh.

Mr. John Pardoe: So what?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who has been so distinguished by his persistent attendance at these debates before that interruption, asks "So what?" The point that my hon. Friend is making is that we would be introducing legislation in Scotland that would affect the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be a similar situation to that in the United States with the difficulties involved in trying to telephone from New York to California when it is teatime in Los Angeles and lunchtime in New York. A Scottish Standing Committee might finish at 1 o'clock in London, but a similar Committee would still be sitting in Edinburgh. One can foresee all sorts of problems arising.
Once we start to scratch the surface of an Assembly that is able to pass legis-

lation that will apply to England as well, we are opening a can of worms. I have been thinking of a few chance examples of the top of my head. For instance, what will happen if a dog that is licensed in Scotland runs over the border into England? Presurably that will involve consequential legislation in England.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Or extradition.

Mr. Sproat: That is a possibility. Suppose a dog was registered in Roxburgh but ran across the border and was caught without a licence in Northumberland.

Mr. Tim Renton: My hon. Friend is missing an important point. Control of stray dogs is one of the specifically devolved powers.

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is not here. He has sound views on this matter. I understood him to say that although he would vote for the Bill, he intended to campaign against it in the referendum. I wondered why he was taking such an ultimately splendid attitude, and I realise now that the reason concerns one of the hon. Gentleman's consistent themes, namely, the appalling number of packs of stray dogs that are terrorising postmen and people on housing estates in Dundee.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is voting as he is because he does not want to lose his dog licence?

Mr. Sproat: I remember that phrase from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). We are using what might seem frivolous examples to make a serious basic point. It must be crazy for the Assembly to have the power to make such legislative proposals as we have mentioned, ranging from salmon fisheries, forestry, public lending right and the ridiculousness of dog licences, and that people in England who have no wish to suffer the consequences of that legislation would have to suffer because people elected to a Scottish Assembly by people living in Scotland said so. That must be wrong.

Mr. Gow: Has my hon. Friend addressed himself to the financial consequences of the Bill that are set out on page vi? Is he aware that a fortnight Thursday is the anniversary of the letter sent to Dr. Witteveen in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that it would be an essential element of the Government's economic strategy that there should be a continuous substantial reduction in the share of public resources required by administration?

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for reminding me of a significant anniversary. I must admit that it had escaped my mind. It is true that under this proposed legislation we would not only give power to a Scottish Assembly but would expand in the public sector. It might very well be that as a result of finances expended on public expenditure in Scotland there would be a consequential or incidental reaction to public expenditure in England. It would be interesting if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to reply, if he were present.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the amendment. I do not wish to go wider still, but I remind him that it is St. Andrew's Day tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concentrate his mind upon Amendment No. 134.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Mr. Murton. I was led astray by the excitement of the debate.
I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness. I think that I recorded his words exactly. He denied that the "behaviour of the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to create debts". That is one of the subjects that we have touched upon today, and no doubt we shall return to it at greater length in future. It is precisely that point that must always exercise those of us who are root and branch opposed to the Bill. We believe that however the Assembly is run, it will create the expending of more money, even if it is run by the most responsible politicians that can be imagined.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a real problem of to whom the civil servants, especially in the financial sector, think they are responsible? Are they respon-

sible to Ministers in the Scottish Assembly, or is their first loyalty to the United Kingdom? It is no good the Minister of State yawning. The responsibilities of civil servants to two different masters is a real problem.

Mr. Sproat: I entirely agree. Civil servants cannot serve two masters, and yet we are introducing another of these irreducible conundrums. If the Assembly gets more money it might exceed the block grant, and even if it does not do so, the greater the block grant, the less for the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no way in which we can get round that.
I return to the hon. Member for Inverness. He said that he did not think that the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to create debts. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there would be an Oliver Twist syndrome. Not only SNP Members but Labour, Conservative and Liberal Members would always be asking for more. The SNP would be asking for more not merely to improve facilities in Scotland but as a way of driving a wedge between England and Scotland. It would be another weapon to sow discord.
By taking the Bill forward without the amendment we are offering yet another positive incentive to create constitutional conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster. It is essential that we support the amendment.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has spoken about possible wedges being driven between Scotland and England. His remarks could be construed as constituting a very large wedge.
During the debate the SNP has been accused of being possibly irresponsible in the Scottish Assembly. It has been said that its conduct will lead to conflict and clashes. It has been said that it would be irresponsible with this, that and the next thing. As for financial irresponsibility, I do not think that the Scottish Assembly could in any way, possibly be more financially irresponsible than successive Chancellors of Governments in running the finances of the United Kingdom. It could not be more irresponsible than Lord Barber and the present Chancellor.
If we are talking about causes for conflict, there can be no greater stimulus


for conflict than the harsh—I w as about to say venomous—words that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said it would be bad if Edinburgh were to legislate for England. But the House of Commons has legislated for Scotland against the wishes of Scottish Members. What happened to Strathclyde is an example of how English Members have overridden the wishe3 of Scottish Members.
10.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South chided my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for getting his facts wrong. If the hon. Member looks at the Official Report of 22nd October 1973 of debates on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill he will find that the Commons rejected by 152 votes to 79 the Lords amendment to divide Strathclyde. On the basis of Scottish votes Strathclyde would have been split up since 26 Scots voted for it and 22 against.

Mr. Sproat: Does the hon. Member accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that English Members rejected that proposal on Second and Third Reading? There was no vote on either the Second or Third Readings. What is more, on the amendment that he has mentioned the leader of the Scottish National Party did not even bother to vote.

Mr. Crawford: My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was the only representative of the SNP in the House at that time.

Mr. Cormack: How many times in the last five years has the will of Scottish Members been thwarted by English Members?

Mr. Crawford: We have been thwarted on many issues, including unemployment, housing and public expenditure. Willy-nilly, the English Members have a majority in the House, and even if all Scottish Members voted in the same way the English would still have a majority. We saw this during debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill. We saw then how English Members were able to ensure that the guillotine did not fall, even although
the majority of Scottish Members wished it to fall.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South should look inwards and think carefully before he says that conflict might arise and be stimulated by a Scottish Assembly. Judging from the way he spoke, I suggest that the potential for conflict will arise in this House not in Edinburgh.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for reminding us that tomorrow is St. Andrew's Day. Perhaps all hon. Members should go to St. Stephen's Hall and look at the splendid series of pictures called "Birth of Britain" where they will see Queen Anne receiving the Articles of Union. Tonight we are debating the root of that Union, which we are anxious should be retained. We are debating a recipe for disaster and a prescription for chaos. If the Bill goes through as the Government would have it, and if that Assembly in Edinburgh is allowed to spread chaos and disunity throughout the United Kingdom, as it will, the achievement of 270 years will quickly be brought to nought.
Although it is getting late at night, and although we have, rightly, introduced a little levity into our debate, this is a deeply serious issue about which many of us feel profoundly. We believe in the Union. We believe in what was achieved in 1707, and we do not want to see an ill-conceived, badly-cobbled-together piece of legislation destroy what has been built up over almost three centuries.
Yet here we have a portion of this Bill which would enable a new and untried Assembly in Scotland to legislate, in effect, for the whole of the United Kingdom. That would be a prescription for disaster and chaos. It could lead to the sort of amusing results described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), but they would not be very amusing in the enacting. They would make people frustrated, angry, deeply suspicious and very hostile.
That is, of course, the very result that the SNP would like to see. Members of that party have no desire to preserve the Union, and it is time we hammered that message home. The SNP stands for total separation, total disruption, the severance of the ties of centuries, an end to almost three centuries of history of the United Kingdom and all the achievements of


those years by the Union. The SNP sees this Assembly that the Government are giving it as merely the first step towards a totally sovereign and independent Parliament.

Mr. Crawford: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cormack: I am delighted to have that approbation. I believe that that aspiration is legitimate and honourable, but I will fight it and oppose it with every breath I have and everything that the House enables me to use, because I believe that the majority of people in the United Kingdom and the majority of people in Scotland itself do not want that to come to pass. If the Bill goes through, that day will be that much nearer. I long for the day when we can take this fight to the people of Scotland, when we can give them a chance to express their verdict.

Mr. Crawford: The SNP has been wanting the people of Scotland to have that chance to show their verdict for many years, but this House has frustrated it.

Mr. Cormack: On that issue at least the hon. Gentleman and I would be totally at one, because it seems manifest nonsense that we should spend long hours on a measure of this kind before the people have had a chance to a say whether they want separation, which is the issue. I have total confidence that they will say that they do not want separation. I am convinced that they will say that they believe in the Act of Union, that they would pay symbolic homage to that picture to which I referred, and that they would honour St. Andrew's Day as one of the days of the four patron saints of the United Kingdom. The sooner they have the chance to say so the better.
It is arrant and manifest nonsense that the Government, in a Bill that they had the chance to reconsider and regurgitate during the longest Summer Recess in recent history, should bring in a provision which enables legislation emanating from a new Assembly in Scotland to influence England and to bind us to certain fundamental decisions over our lives. Whether it be dog licences or public lending rights—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is misguided, although it is the only issue on

which he is—or anything else, the principle is wrong.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is not by any manner of means the only thing on which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is misguided. The question of dog licences has nothing whatever to do with this schedule. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] Even if it had, I remind hon. Members that in Switzerland there are 2,000 communes, each of which may have its own dog licences at will. That does nothing to harm the essential unity of Switzerland.

Mr. Cormack: I was not aware that we were debating the cantons of Switzerland or the Pekinese of Scotland. But the hon. Gentleman is misguided because stray dogs were specifically mentioned. Although my hon. Friend dealt with that subject in his customary light-hearted but excellent way, he was dealing with an issue which is specifically relevant to the topic under discussion. The whole House owes him a great debt of gratitude. But the fact is that this Bill is flawed through and through.
The Bill performs no service to anybody, least of all to the people of Scotland. To connive at the establishment of an Assembly with these powers would be to spread chaos, disunity and disruption through a kingdom to which most of us are proud to belong, want to serve and wish to see continue for many a long year.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Committee is deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for introducing this amendment, because as we have discussed the various matters relating to it we have seen yet again that, no matter for what official reason the Government put a timetable motion on the debates, it is perfectly obvious that they must have known in their heart of hearts that the Bill would not stand up to the sort of detailed investigation and debate that has taken place this evening on this and other matters.
The amendment seeks to remove from the competence of the Assembly any provision which extends outside Scotland. One can imagine the agonies of Ministers and draftsmen all through the hot summer months trying to keep this part of the Bill on a reasonably logical basis.
My right hon. Friend talked of the differences that can arise on different pieces of legislation that might be affected by this part of the Bill. He mentioned abortion and adoption laws being different in England from Scotland, and obviously that would imply that various other standards would be affected. This could result in some kind of population drift between the two countries, and I am sure that that would happen for quite the wrong reasons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has dealt briefly with the important question of abortion. Will he consider this further, because I believe that this one issue confounds the whole part of the Bill that we are now dealing with? It would create grave difficulties in this country if the laws on abortion in Scotland were different.

Mr. Fletcher: There are already differences between Scots and English law on a number of matters, but we do not want to make artificial differences between the two countries just for their own sake. People expect basic standards of health and social services throughout the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the Minister of State will agree from his experience as a constituency Member that there is no demand for different standards or types of service in these essential matters as between one part of the country and another. The danger is that 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh will want to make things different just for the sake of having something to do in order to justify their own existence.
These divisions will not be helpful either in implementing the Bill or in the effort to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom. It is divisive to concentrate on and to extend our differences. It causes discontent and drives Scotland apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a movement towards separation.
10.45 p.m.
Of course, there are cultural and legal differences, as I have said, but these are in another category, for good historical reasons. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, we do not want just to indulge in some kind of musical chairs, making changes because it seems a good way to increase employ-

ment among civil servants and bureau. crats in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) hit on an important point when he referred to public lending right, but I am sure that he realises that differences can be brought in also which affect companies, the way companies operate and the climate in which business is carried on in one country or the other. Such matters are bound to be affected by parts of the legislation which could be introduced in an Assembly.
This debate, therefore, returns to the crux of the matter and raises again the question whether the institution devised in the Bill could possibly survive not only in the present political climate in Scotland, but in the sort of political climate which it is bound to stoke up for the future. We should remember that although we are discussing a constitutional Bill there is not a bit of evidence to suggest that we are fighting a constitutional battle in Scotland. We are fighting a political battle, one party with another, and one party in particular is trying to upstage all the others with its demands for just about anything and everything. But there is no evidence that we are fighting a constitutional battle or constitutional campaign in regard to Scottish politics at the moment. What this ambiguous Bill does is to feed the fires and differences.
I know that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) takes a different view. He has stated that the Assembly is being created because there is conflict now. I think that he misunderstands the situation, if I may say so. I do not deny that they exist, but today's political conflicts in Scotland, just as those in any other part of Britain, can be at least sorted out and settled to the best of our ability in one arena, here in the House of Commons. I know that that is difficult enough at times, but none the less this is the place where we can get together and try to sort out our differences.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is that the definitive answer from the Tory Front Bench, that the Tory Opposition do not want devolution at all and it can all be done here?

Mr. Fletcher: The point I am putting it seems a good way to increase employ-


He says that the Assembly is being created because there is conflict now. That is his reason for it. I am saying that whereas today's conflicts can be sorted out in one arena, here in the House of Commons, although that is difficult enough, the proposals in the Bill and the conflict which is built into the Bill will make it extremely difficult for us to settle conflicts in the future, because we shall find two different pillboxes engaging in battle. That is not the intention of those who propose devolution for Scotland. The intention is quite different from the proposals in the Bill. Again one wonders how the Government could possibly in the first place have put the ill-fated Clause 1 into the Bill and claim, as they did, that it did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the sovereignty of Parliament.
I admire the Minister's coolness in replying to our debates. I hope that when he replies to this one he will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I hope that he will remember that the House of Commons should legislate in matters which affect the United Kingdom. I hope that he will remember that he stands at the Box as a United Kingdom Minister and that he will take the question of conflict, which has been seriously put to him, into account in his winding-up speech.

Mr. John Smith: When the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) moved the amendment, in his usual careful and precise way, I doubt whether he imagined that the debate would reach the wilder shores of fancy in which hon. Members have indulged. We have been told that all sorts of horrendous and terrific things will be done to innocent citizens in England by the wild, uncontrollable Assembly that will sit in Edinburgh.
It would be fair to remind the Committee of the powers contained in paragraph 8. Its essence is that the provisions empower the enactment of ancillary provisions relating to matters other than devolved matters, or extending to another part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland, only if those ancillary provisions are truly subsidiary to the purposes for which the Assembly Act has been passed. They are not an attempt to trespass into reserved or non-devolved

matters. That is implicit in the wording of the paragraph itself.

Mr. Page: The Minister has used two words that are not in the clause, "ancillary" and "subsidiary". That is not what the clause says.

Mr. Smith: I should not have given way to the right hon. Gentleman because I was about to come to the clause when he interrupted.
It is implicit in the wording of the subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 8. Paragraph 8(a) refers to provisions that are
necessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions.
Paragraph 8(b) specifically recognises that the first category in paragraph 8(a) is also incidental or consequential in nature by the use of the word "otherwise". I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point.
In plain terms, in paragraph 8 we are dealing with two classes of ancillary provision, the first being incidental or consequential provisions needed to make an Assembly Act effective or enforceable, and the second being any kind of amending provisions which could be said to be incidental or consequential to any provisions of an Assembly Act. I am describing the meaning in plain terms.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked why we needed the provisions at all. It is because where we have an Assembly operating within devolved areas, properly within its own functions, making changes in the names of institutions or changes in the institutions themselves it is necessary to make amendments to other United Kingdom Acts of Parliament beyond the scope of the Assembly's legislative competence. If we did not deal with it by having these ancillary provisions it would be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to make all the consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) raised the question of consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Assembly. He was one of the few hon. Members to appreciate the limited nature of the powers given in paragraph 8. It will be necessary for the United Kingdom


Government and the Scottish Administration to consult, and we expect that they will consult regularly about these provisions. It will be necessary for there to be a dialogue about it. But if there were some disagreement and if a Scottish Assembly attempted to sneak past as an incidental provision something which was a substantive matter which was not within its legislative competence, the United Kingdom Government could refer it to the Judicial Committee as a matter of vires, and the Judicial Committee could decide whether it was incidental or consequential, or whether it was an attempt to legislate for the United Kingdom. That is a very important protection.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I was not simply saying that there should be consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. I was saying that if ancillary legislation was required to change the law of England it was much more appropriate that this Parliament should have the power to pass it, and that the Assembly's powers should be limited to affecting the law of Scotland.

Mr. Smith: I am aware of that point and am dealing with it. Is it sensible that we must introduce separate legislation in this House for each minor, technical amendment? It is not easy to find time for legislation.
The right hon. Member for Crosby was carried away with exaggeration when he said that the provision could drive a coach and pair——

Mr. Graham Page: A coach and four.

Mr. Smith: —through the whole matter of competence as between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. He knows that any attempt to do that would be clearly ultra vires and could be checked by the Judicial Committee.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates what the provisions mean, but some of his hon. Friends obviously do not. What we propose is a much easier and neater way of dealing with minor tidying-up than requiring the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate to make corrections to Acts. For example, the Assembly might abolish the Housing Corporation, change its name or bring

in a different agency, so that it would be necessary to make a technical amendment to the Finance Act where it referred to the original body. That is a technical amendment which could easily be made under the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Pentlands said that we should have a separate Act to deal with such a matter, but I think that he would accept that that would be totally out of scale with the problem.

Mr. Rifkind: I am saying that it should be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. Whether it was done through an Act or subsidiary regulations would be a matter for Parliament to decide. But under no circumstances should it be possible for the Assembly to change a Finance Act passed by Parliament.

Mr. Brittan: May I just——

Mr. Smith: I cannot deal with two interventions at once.

Mr. Brittan: It is on the same point.

Mr. Smith: It is difficult to deal with two interventions at the same time. The hon. Member for Pentlands says that in all circumstances it should be for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide. But the United Kingdom Government have the check of referring the question of vires and the check of override, so I cannot see why hon. Members have this fear. They have been trying to suggest that somehow the Assembly will be able to make massive changes in the law of England outwith the territory of Scotland and totally subvert the whole legislative process of this House. They must know that that is absolute rubbish. There is nothing in the paragraph that gives anything like that power. These are ancillary and consequential provisions, and not much more.

Mr. Brittan: If that is so, would it not be appropriate that the matter should be dealt with under Clause 35, which gives the United Kingdom Parliament power to make consequential changes? That would not have the political difficulties of the Assembly's appearing to be legislating for England.

Mr. Smith: In many cases that is one technique that can be used to deal with such problems, but it is sensible to have a capacity for the Assembly to deal with


the matter, by giving it the limited capacity which has been given. It is being said by the alarmists that this is a much wider power than the Assembly can have. The truth is that it is a very sensible provision which is necessary when we have a Scottish Assembly legislating on matters where its legislation must dovetail neatly with the United Kingdom legislation, because our body of law will be created by the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, and it will make sense for everybody who has to operate under that legislation if the two pieces of legislation dovetail together.
Some of the wilder fancies that we have traversed in the course of the debate imply that the Scottish Assembly could make changes in the substantive law of England. I reject that absolutely. It cannot. Such changes must be incidental

to the provisions. I ask the House to move away from the wild exaggeration that we have had in the course of the debate and to start to look at the Bill much more constructively and carefully. If Conservative Members read Hansard tomorrow they will find that the steps of my argument have been careful and precise. I therefore ask the House not to accept the amendment.

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November], and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 170.

Division No. 25]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Alison, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Haselhurst, Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Awdry, Daniel
Hodgson, Robin
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Baker, Kenneth
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Benyon, W.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biffen, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Braine, Sir Bernard
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brittan, Leon
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brooke, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Burden, F. A.
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Carson, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McCusker, H.
Sproat, Iain

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cormack, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Drayson, Burnaby
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Molyneaux, James
Wall, Patrick


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Winterton, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony



Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John MacGregor.


Hall, Sir John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Halloran, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ovenden, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pardoe, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Henderson, Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Bean, R. E.
Hooson, Emlyn
Radice, Giles


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Charley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rose, Paul B.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sever, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Janner, Greville
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Cohen, Stanley
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawford, Douglas
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thompson, George


Dalyell, Tam
MacCormick, Iain
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ward, Michael


Doig, Peter
Madden, Max
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
Watt, Hamish


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Welsh, Andrew


Edge, Geoff
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollok)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch' ch)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, Austin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Ted Graham


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Question put, That this schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 135.

Division No. 26]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H.
Cohen, Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coleman, Donald


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Crawford, Douglas


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Buchanan, Richard
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bates, Alf
Campbell, Ian
Cryer, Bob


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Beith, A. J.
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Lamble, David
Rose, Paul B.


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Sever, John


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


George, Bruce
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth
Thompson, George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Harper, Joseph
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin
Ward, Michael


Hatton, Frank
Molloy, William
Watkins, David


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watt, Hamish


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Noble, Mike
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pardoe, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Penhaligon, David



John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles
Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Ted Graham.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richardson, Miss Jo





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Alison, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bottomley, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brittan, Leon
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brooke, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Carlisle, Mark
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carson, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cope, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCusker, H.
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)







Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sproat, Iain
Viggers, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Stainton, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)



Stokes, John
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stradling Thomas, J.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John MacGregor.

Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

ThenTHE CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to order [16th November].

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — THAMES BOARD MILLS LIMITED

11.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay or undertake to pay by way of Financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by the Industry Act 1975 and the Industry (Amendment) Act 1976, in respect of the business carried on by Thames Board Mills Ltd. at Workington sums exceeding £5 million but not exceeding £10·5 million.
This is the first project to come before the House under the selective investment scheme introduced in December 1976. It follows on the experience that we had under the highly successful accelerated project scheme, and like that scheme it has a minimum project value of half a million pounds. It is also aimed to encourage where possible investment to take place earlier than it would otherwise have been undertaken. We have widened its purpose to include projects where the company will undertake larger investment in scale, including modernisation, than was previously envisaged.
Each individual case is examined against the national benefits that will arise from it. So far we have approved 40 offers of assistance amounting to £11·5 million under the scheme, and the approvals could include further projects that will lead to investment of £123 million. That means that every £1 million of Government money is at present generating £10 million of actual investment.
Altogether these projects will benefit the balance of payments by over £83 million a year by 1980. They will create 2,200 new jobs and will safeguard many more. Already there are 88 other applications under consideration for projects worth over £1,000 million. There have been 85 applications turned down or withdrawn.
Applications cover a wide range of industries, and there are various distinctive features that have appealed to us in the projects that we have approved so far. As has already been intimated, the time-scales of some projects have been brought forward where there have been significant increases in the scale of investment, where we have been enabled to obtain new inward investment that would not other-

wise have come to the country, or where important technological advance has been achieved.
The proposal that we are considering has been put forward by Thames Board Mills Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever. The one project will cost the company £100 million. I believe that it is its largest single investment project. The project will be located at Workington in Cumbria, which is itself a special development area with a rate of unemployment of over 8 per cent. It will produce 100,000 tons of Duplex a year, which is high-quality packaging board.
The £100 million will be made up as follows. There will be £19·5 million spent on buildings and £63·4 million on plant and machinery. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), who spoke to me earlier today about the matter, that the company is aware of our wish that as far as possible it purchases its equipment in Britain. It is conscious of the Government's priorities in that respect. In fairness to the company, it has a good record of purchasing in Britain wherever possible, but it has to take into account reasonable commercial considerations in giving such priority. A further £3·1 million will be used for pre-operation expenses and technical support plus £13 million in working capital.
At present there is not sufficient capacity in the United Kingdom to meet the demand for Duplex, and 50 per cent of our requirement—that is 100,000 tons—is imported each year from Scandinavia, mainly from Sweden and Finland. The market is expected to grow by a further 100,000 tons by the early 1980s. Unless additional capacity is introduced within the United Kingdom, all the extra 100,000 tons will have to be imported, giving a total import of about 200,000 tons.
Duplex is made from mechanical pulp and will be manufactured on site from timber grown in this country. I stress that we have had assurances from the Forestry Commission that there are ample supplies of appropriate pulp wood thinnings that will meet not only the requirements of the Thames project but any other projects that are expected or foreseeable.

Mr. Max Madden: Has the plant any recycling capacity?

Mr. Williams: That, of course, would be so if there was waste paper recycling under the paper and board scheme, but this is a product made from wood pulp, not waste paper. There is a health reason for that. This is a high quality product and it is used for the packaging of food and so on. However, it cannot readily be produced from waste products and that is not a feature of its production.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister says that he has had an assurance from the Forestry Commission that there will be adequate supplies for this mill. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland about road conditions from the areas where the forests are grown to the pulp mill? A project of this kind will certainly affect the roads in, for example, my constituency.

Mr. Williams: I understand that 20 to 30 per cent of the supplies of the raw material will come from Scottish sources, mainly private estates.

Mr. Hector Monro: rose——

Mr. Williams: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman for the moment. I shall get into trouble with the Chief Whip for speaking for too long and yet it will have been people interrupting me who will have prolonged my speech when I was trying to keep it brief.
About 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the raw material supplies will come from Scotland and I have not heard it suggested that there will be any transport difficulties. However, in view of what has been said, I will certainly ensure that that matter is discussed with the Scottish Office.

Mr. Monro: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say with any authority that the majority of the raw material supply will come from private sources. It will come from the Forestry Commission, largely from Northumberland and the south of Scotland
The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew that the roads would be adequate, but the right hon. Member for Roxburgh,

Selkidk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and I know that they simply cannot be adequate.

Mr. Williams: I do not remember claiming that the roads would be adequate. I do not personally know the locality. What I said was that I would ensure that this matter was discussed with the appropriate Departments.
A substantial part of the raw material suppliers will come from Scotland and it is therefore probable that a comparable proportion of the job creation will arise in Scotland. I shall have more to say about that later.
The balance of payments will benefit from this project by £28 million a year by 1985 because of the 100,000 tons import substitution. About 280 jobs will be created at Workington, which, as I have said, is an area of high unemployment. A further 350 jobs will arise from the preparation and transport of the wood thinnings and a proportion of that number will be in Scotland. Construction work will give rise at peak to an extra 500 jobs between 1970 and 1980. Substantial other work will arise from the placing of orders for much of the plant and machinery with British companies

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am not worried about the Chief Whip and I hope that my right hon. Friend is not. I am incapable of being frightened by him. Is my right hon. Friend saying that in Workington the free market forces which sent an hon. Member here on the Tory platform are incapable of solving the unemployment problem and that we are now having to have subsidies paid by the taxpayer in an attempt to resolve some of the unemployment problems there? If that is the case, would it not be sensible in future for Workington to send a Socialist Member here to uphold these principles?

Mr. Williams: I find the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) absolutely convincing. I cannot take exception to anything that he has just said. It is interesting to note that when we last voted under Section 8 of the Industry Act—the section under which these funds are made available—Conservative Members trooped into the Lobbies against providing that money.


If they had their way Workington would not be getting this project.
The company had to satisfy the Department that the project would not have taken place at this time without the support of the interest relief grant of £10.5 million. We have examined the company's records and we confirm that the project had not found a place in its forward investment programme for the immediate future and that, subsequent to the announcement of the selective investment scheme, they brought the scheme forward for review in the light of the new assistance.
The company's reservations are understandable. A total of £100 million is an enormous investment and one can understand that the company looked at it very critically. There would also be a three or four-year period before production and the company would be vulnerable to changes in exchange rates. All these facts led the company to ask for Government support before it committed itself.

Mr. Ron Thomas: What is the evidence that the company would not have invested without this subvention from public funds? What will be the total public subsidy to this massive company, Unilever, in terms of development grants, tax reliefs and the £5 million to £10 million that we a giving to it?

Mr. Williams: The company will qualify for regional development grant in addition to the interest relief grant. Officials in the Department looked at the scheme in detail to establish whether it had been in the company's investment programme. The officials were satisfied that the scheme had not been in the programme.
The scheme was then scrutinised by the independent Industrial Development Advisory Board which commended it as being ideally suitable for selective investment support. The matter has been vetted not only by departmental officials, including those who were co-opted into the Department to deal with such matters, but by the entirely independent Industrial Development Advisory Board. The project is consistent with the scheme. It will make a major contribution in terms of import substitution and will therefore

have a positive effect on the balance of payments.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Various assurances have been received from the company, such as that British machinery would be used and that the project would give rise to import substitution. Does my right hon. Friend not think that this large special grant and these assurances would have been better had they been dealt with in the context of a planning agreement with the company?

Mr. Williams: No, I do not. Planning agreements take a substantial time to develop. In this case it was important to get the investment under way as quickly as possible. A planning agreement would not have been the most helpful course. I hope that the House will support the proposal.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I say at once that it is not the intention of the Opposition to divide against the motion. We take the view that this is one of those rare occasions when the Government are proposing to make worthwhile use of the powers available under the Conservative Government's Industry Act 1972.
In reaching that position, we were helped by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page), whose constituency is most directly affected by the project and who has the most first-hand knowledge of it. He has visited the existing plant, has familiarised himself with the project, and has given invaluable advice. By happy coincidence, he is an officer of the Conservative Industry committee, and we look forward to his valuable advice on the industrial situation in his part of the country for many years.
The effects on Workington are somewhat limited. The project when completed will provide only 279 additional jobs. The total cost to public funds of the assistance is about £28½ million, before any account is taken of tax relief. Normally speaking, expenditure of that size in order to produce 279 jobs is not of itself an adequate reason to support the application.
The employment-creating potential of this investment is not, therefore, the major factor, but it is important in view of the


employment situation in Workington town. There are other key factors, and the debate gives me the opportunity to explain yet again to the Minister what position we take on Section 8 of the Industry Act, and why we feel that that these powers should be used properly but sparingly on a selective basis for the purpose for which they were contemplated by the Conservative Government.
The first key factor in the case is that there is no question of the company being a lame duck or any similar species of animal. The company, a subsidiary of Unilever, is highly profitable; the present plant is highly profitable and successful. The Government on this occasion are not attempting to use public money to retain jobs for the short term in any uncompetitive industry.

Mr. Mike Noble: The hon. Gentleman refers to lame ducks. I recall the statement he made in the Clothier some time ago about the clothing industry. Will he give us his definition of a lame duck? Would he give aid if he were in a position to give it?

Mr. Clarke: I never use the term "lame duck" as a serious description. When we have a debate on the clothing industry—I know the hon. Gentleman's close interest in it—I will happily amplify my views. I am glad that he notes them when they appear in the Clothier.
The second major reason for supporting this investment is that given by the Minister—that the project has great import-saving potential. The paper and board industry has a very large import bill. The position of this country has been greatly affected by the recent decline in the exchange rate, and the cost of imported wood pulp, upon which our industry heavily relies for almost half its pulp requirements, has gone up because it is traded usually in United States dollars. The Minister says, rightly, that 28 million dollars, the estimated saving by manufacturing Duplex board in this country, is a significant contribution to the balance of payments.
The third principal reason for supporting this investment is that it seems to be a case where public money being put into investment is probably needed in order to persuade this company to undertake the investment. That is supposal to be

the criterion for all Section 8 assistance, and the Minister is satisfied that the company would not have gone ahead without the offer of assistance.
Of course the hon. Gentleman is easily satisfied on that score by the many hundreds of companies making claims under Section 8. But in this case one can see that there are reasons why even a major concern such as Thames Board Mills might hesitate unless it had some direct grant assistance. The paper and board industry in which the company operates has gone through a great recession. In 1975 the industry as a whole had the worst year of recession that it has ever known, and at the moment it is only hoping that in 1978 it can get back to the levels of production of 1973. So these are not auspicious times for a company in the industry lightly to undertake a major investment.
In addition, with a project of this kind the company is having to look up to 15 years ahead in trying to form a judgment on its likely market and the return on investment. That involves taking a view about highly speculative matters some of which are under the control of Governments. I refer to such matters as the level of the exchange rate over the intervening period, and the likely level of the market and demand, all of which depend on the way in which the economy of the country is managed.
The company has used its commercial judgment and would not have contemplated the scheme unless it was satisfied that there was a potential market for Duplex board which it could occupy profitably if it invested in this scheme. But it appears likely that that decision in principle would not be likely to be put into practice without a substantial public contribution. This is an area of Section 8 assistance policy where we in the Conseravative Party are always most cautious and intend to remain so. I was glad to see that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) also had doubts on this score when looking at assistance given to private industry.
Normally, when making investment decisions, companies rely on their own judgment of the anticipated market and the likely return on capital, and they weigh that against the risks involved. That is what determines investment, and


far too often the Government's contribution of taxpayers' money is a bonus contribution which the companies claim when they want it. The clothing industry scheme, about which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) expressed an interest, is an example of where the Government have thrown money at an industry but where the industry cannot be persuaded to take it up because there is no good commercial reason for investing the £15 million currently available.
Take the case of the ferrous foundry industry in respect of which the Government claim so much success for their policies. We are satisfied that a large proportion of the Government money is contributing to investment which would have gone ahead in any event and which would have been financed by capital raised on the market.
But in the case now before us the risk involved for the investment is so great, and the scale so large, that the company is taking a decision that it would not take at the moment if it were not helped. Grants towards investment in this way can influence the timing of investment decisions and sometimes the location of investment, although that is not relevant here because the company is already located in Workington and has the site to which it intends to go. There is an obvious inducement here to take a risk which the Government believe to be in the national interest.
This is one of the rare cases where we feel that the use of Section 8 is justified, and for which the section was designed. We shall support it.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that on the more general question of providing aid for advance investment programmes such as this there is a more general problem in that there is the risk of extending the recession for certain industries with the provision of assistance for certain productive capacity? Does he agree that by increasing capacity and production in that industry one might artificially depress prices and therefore extend the recession and delay the revival of natural investment in the industry? Is that not a wider and more real consideration which might weigh against schemes of the kind we are now considering?

Mr. Clarke: That is a valid point, but it is not particularly applicable to Duplex board and this investment. There is only limited capacity in this country for the manufacture of this board. Most of the existing capacity is in Scandinavia, and it is anticipated that in the 1980s there will be a substantial growth in the market both here and abroad. British capacity would save a large import bill.
I come now to the questions which I have to ask about this assistance. First, I want the Minister to give an answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West about the total of grant likely to be involved in this £100 million project at Workington. We are debating the £10½ million being given under Section 8 of the 1972 Act, but there is a bigger sum being given by way of regional development grant under Section 1 of the Act, that being an automatic grant of aid which does not require express parliamentary approval.
My understanding is that the company is likely to receive 22 per cent. of the eligible costs of the scheme, and that is likely to come to about £18½ million. So there is a grant of taxpayers' money here, I understand, of about £29 million. I should like the Minister to confirm that.

Mr. Skinner: Surely, the hon. Gentleman's answer a moment ago to his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), with his remarks about the market economy—that is roughly what he was driving at—should have included a reference to his hon. Friend's past association as one of Slater Walker's young blades with activities which resulted in the end in the taxpayer recently having to find about £70 million in order to pick up the pieces which he and his friends left.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has a perfectly reputable business career behind him, and I should say, on the strength of his experience, that he knows a great deal more about these matters than does the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hon. Member shows a rather ridiculous approach to a debate on a serious matter by coming in and making snide and misplaced remarks about one of my hon. Friends.
I come now to my next question. Why is this grant being made not under the


Paper and Board Industry Scheme, a separate scheme, but under Section 8 of the Industry Act? Since we are looking at the question of assistance to the paper and board industry generally, I shall put another point to the Minister. How much of the £23 million already available to the industry under the Paper and Board Industry Scheme has so far been offered and taken up? Why was not this application brought within that scheme? Also—this may shed light on that matter—does the Paper and Board Industry Scheme extend to projects of this kind which are aimed at the use of indigenous timber? Is that scheme confined to the recycling of waste paper and other fibres? That seems to be by no means clear in the day-to-day operation of the scheme.
If the problem is that the scheme does not extend to the use of indigenous timber, that takes me to other questions which, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will seek to raise later if he catches the eye of the Chair. I refer to the question of the availability of timber and the way in which the timber will be transported to the mill.
The Paper and Board Industry Scheme as originally brought out seemed to contemplate the use of indigenous timber, and its first guidelines contained certain caveats about the availability of timber. When they floated the scheme, the Government said, for instance, that the Department of Industry, is considering applications of this kind,
will need to he satisfied that the necessary supplies of indigenous timber will be available on a long-term basis
and that the Secretary of State
will take into account possible alternative uses for such timber.
Certain Press reports have indicated that the timber for the project under debate will come from the company's own forests. In fact, the company does not own any forests, and I understand that most of the timber will come from the Forestry Commission in the north of England and southern Scotland. The Minister said that the Forestry Commission is happy that it can satisfy the demand. Has he made doubly sure of that, and why is he satisfied of it now when his Department put such cautious words into the guidance for the Paper and Board Industry Scheme less than two years ago?
I turn next to the question of the purchase of British equipment, in which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) is interested. The Minister said that it was the Government's wish that British equipment should be brought for this plant, and I am sure that that is echoed by us all, but my understanding is that it is in no way a condition of these grants—I trust that it is not—that any particular equipment should be purchased. I hope also that the Minister can reassure us that no constraints whatever have been put on the company's own judgment of what is technically the most appropriate for this project and what is the best and most tried equipment to employ.
Those are my only queries on the matter, and I hope that the Minister can answer them. Otherwise, we are content that this grant should be made. It will help one of the biggest investments by anyone in the paper and board industry for many years. It involves something of a speculation about the future shape of the market, but obviously it is in the country's interest that the project should succeed. In the end, we should get a great deal of import saving and an improvement in our balance of payments as a result.
We wish well to the project and to the plant when it is finally established, and we trust that it will prove to be a successful contribution to the industrial activity of the North-West.

12 midnight.

Mr. Mike Noble: It may seem strange that a Member from the Lancashire area is speaking in this debate, but I have two interests in this subject. The first is that I look forward to the time after the next General Election when I can welcome one of my former constituents, Mr. Dale Campbell Savers, as a Labour Member of Parliament. He fought the last by-election in Workington on the basis of intervention in industry and providing jobs, but this was attacked by Conservative Members.
My second interest is that the paper machinery industry is concentrated in the North-West, particularly in Bury, and many of my constituents work in that industry. That means that I welcome the statement, although I regret, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr.


McDonald) pointed out, that we have not obtained the degree of accountability that we would wish in controlling this element of public expenditure. Nevertheless, it will create jobs not only in Workington and in the forestry areas but, we hope, in the North-West and particularly in the Bury and Radcliffe and Rossendale areas, where many people work in the paper and the paper machinery industry.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that the development is carried through in consultation between Thames Board Mills and the paper machinery industry in Bury and Radcliffe and Rossendale, so that if there are any design or technological problems we can have full consultation from the beginning to ensure that this investment in machinery—which from my reading is the bulk of the investment—remains in this country, so that we can have a flourishing and expanding paper machinery industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay careful regard to that, and monitor the project to make sure that the jobs come about.
An important principle raised by this debate is the ambivalent attitude of the Conservatives where public funds are involved, whether for the financing of industry or for anything else. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made a statement to Clothier about lame ducks. We in the textile industry are still waiting for a reply. He said that this firm is not a lame duck. Does that mean that the Conservative Party is not prepared to preserve jobs in the North-West? Does it mean that the temporary employment subsidy will be withdrawn by the Conservative Party in many areas?
I return to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page). In the West Cumberland Times and Star on 13th August the hon. Member stated in an open letter to trade unionists, many of whom work for Thames Board Mills:
If only the Government had behaved in expenditure and restraint on interference in all a similar manner with restraint on public sections of activity"—
presumably he meant the industry—
there would have been a much improved chance of being poised to join in with the world recovery.
What exactly did he mean? Does he want to see his constituents in Workington starved of this investment? He fought

the election campaign on the basis of non-interference in private industry. I was there, and so were many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Workington wanted to see a completely free market economy.
My colleague Dale Campbell Savers fought the election on the basis of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, of providing Government funds for industry in Workington and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Workington hid behind the skirts of many of his hon. Friends and won the election. Now he is coming to the Chamber to ask for the Government aid that he denied last year in that election campaign.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the grants are being made under legislation passed by the last Conservative Government, and that his own Government are expressly disowning any intention of forcing a planning agreement on the company, of taking a public stake in it or demanding undertakings from it about the purchase of machinery or intervening in the purchase, as he is demanding? Therefore, we are glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page) and others of my hon. Friends have converted the Minister against the sort of public intervention that his colleagues are demanding.

Mr. Noble: In the debate on the Gracious Speech the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said that we should withdraw subsidies from industry and that there should be no support for lame ducks. When the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) raised the question of advanced purchasing of investment capacity, the hon. Member for Workington nodded his head when the right hon. Gentleman said that that could cause a continuation of the recession. Does that mean that the hon. Member for Workington objects to this investment in his constituency? Perhaps he will come clean.
There is ambivalence in the Conservative Party's attitude towards support for industry. We are all aware of it, and the public are becoming aware of it. Many of us on the Labour Benches would like to see the Department of Industry tying down industries with planning agreements and so on. We would prefer


some accountability for the way in which the taxpayer's money is spent. But even in the absence of that, we wish to see jobs created. On that basis, we are prepared to support my right hon. Friend the Minister tonight. We do not think that we have achieved the whole cake. Perhaps this is half way. We want to see big companies such as Unilever and Courtaulds and many more tied down so that when they receive public funds those funds create jobs and are not used in the way that Conservative Members would argue.
I return to the point with which I opened. We have a serious position in the paper industry in Bury, Radcliffe and Rossendale. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe says, we not only ask but expect my right hon. Friend to enter into consultations with Thames Board Mills to make sure that there are continuing negotiations and discussions between the machinery manufacturers in our area and the company, to ensure that the massive investment in plant and machinery will come to our area.
There is a great deal at stake. We hope that my right hon. Friend will remember that and forget the blandishments of Conservative Members who simply want to see money pumped into private industry with no accountability.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Richard Page: I am pleased that we have this further opportunity to discuss future industrial expansion in Workington. I am delighted that industry in the area is expanding, and coming away from its original twin foundations of coal and steel.
It may help the House if I explain why such a vast investment is necessary for what appears to be just a piece of paper. Duplex folding board is a superior-quality board used to make the boxes that hold one's cereals, chocolates and cigarettes—and one's fruit pies, if one is brave enough to risk them. Like most things that appear to be simple, it turns out to be fairly complicated. At present it is made—and this is vital, because it goes into the cost of the plant and machinery—by one thin layer of high-quality material being laid, then three layers of infill, and then a thin layer of backing—two sides of the sandwich to hold the meat in the middle.
Duplex has superior qualities of creasing and folding ability, better printability and extra rigidity and stiffness. These qualities are very superior to those of the white-lined chipboard that is used extensively at present. Market trends point to increasing demand for Duplex board.
From the national point of view, this plant produces some 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom demand, running at the moment at 190,000 tons. Of that, over 50 per cent., as mentioned by the Minister, is coming from Scandinavia.
Thames Board Mills Limited has done a lot of very careful market projections and reckons that in 1986 over 310,000 tons will be used in this country. If we do nothing about it and leave it as it is, the United Kingdom capacity of 120,000 tons will give a shortfall of 200,000 tons. If we are to maintain the status quo, it is absolutely vital that we produce the extra 100,000 tons. This is where the expansion of Thames Board Mills Limited comes in.
A variety of figures of cost have been bandied around. It should be just under £100 million, and in that there is an inflation clause of £25 million. That is the extra cost for inflation simply to be able to put in this plant. The new machine will do the meat in the sandwich layer in one and not three separate sections. From the technical point of view that will help not only in speed of production but with greater layer separation.
We are discussing the £10·5 million. I do not think that the Minister has made the point that it is not allowable against tax. It will help the company with cash flow, and when the company moves into profit it will pay back 52½ per cent., so that £5 million will come back.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made certain comments which I find quite unbelievable. It is a sad reflection on the Government's industrial policy that a successful company has to come to this House to ask for money in order to undertake some form of investment for the future. Since I fought the election in Workington in 1974, unemployment has gone up by 4 per cent. and I know which Government are responsible for that rise. I know where to point the finger, and it is not at the Opposition.
>I tell the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) that I should be only too willing to have another election. I should like it to be right now. Will he tell the Leader of his party that I should love to have an election right now? I know who would be coming back to this House. The people of Workington know which is the party to lead this country and to bring it the right way round. The Labour Government have run the country into the ground, and it is no use trying to blame the Conservative Party.

Mr. Noble: In view of that statement, can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the workers in Miller's in Workington, a foot-wear factory, are writing to me about their problems and not to him?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman should try to get his facts right. The workers from Miller's have already contacted me, particularly about closed uppers coming in from Third world countries, and we are discussing with Ministers ways of monitoring these so that they do not get by the agreed levels. Let that be under-stood.
I mentioned earlier the increase of 100,000 tons. If this level is maintained, there will be a saving in imports of £35 million in 1986. That is at 1977 prices. Some of my hon. Friends have already commented on the supply of thinnings from Scotland.
From a constituency point of view- I have been talking nationally up to now—I believe that this proposed development is welcome on a variety of bases. It telescopes stages two and three into one. When the plant went in originally it was stage one, then stage two, and then stage three. This puts it into one. The production will be coming in one machine. I welcome it on the ground that it will help our future balance of payments and also help with jobs in West Cumbria. I also welcome it because it is support for profitable industry and will give a return to the Exchequer when it is in operation.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I promised that I would be brief and I shall be. I have visited Workington and I was amazed by the size of the plant as well as by the small number of people required to work it. I still ask myself

whether it is absolutely essential for plants to be as large as or larger than this. That is something that we all need to think about.
Certainly this country so far as it can, wants to move towards self-sufficiency in timber products.
But it seems to me that the Government's asking the House tonight to pass this motion is tantamount to asking us to rubber stamp a blank cheque. The House has not debated forestry for many years. How can the Government ask us to vote this money without giving us a full picture of Government thinking on forestry and on the timber industry? It is not good enough simply to talk about one particular mill. It is absolutely necessary for the House regularly to debate forestry in the United Kingdom. It is not good enough that we are allowed to make the occasional speech when the Scottish Grand Committee debates agriculture. Only by having regular debates on forestry can we be in a position to understand the full significance of what we are being asked to do tonight.
The House should remember that the bulk of the wood used by Thames Board Mills of Workington comes from Scotland, as witnessed in an article in the Financial Times on Saturday which said:
Pulp used for the board is already made at Workington, mainly from Scottish trees".
This means that Scotland runs the risk of becoming a colony providing raw materials for processing in another country. Dumfries and Galloway are no longer prepared to be that. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh as much as they like, but the people of Scotland will note their laughter and will draw the necessary conclusion at the end of the day.

Mr. Winifred Ewing: The more they laugh, the better for us.

Mr. Thompson: We in Dumfries and Galloway want sawmills and by the 1990s a particle mill and a pulp mill in our region. The Government must come clean and tell us whether this development at Workington will pre-empt further essential development in Dumfries and Galloway within the next two decades.
The people of Galloway are no longer prepared to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, neither mere drawers of water to make tea for tourists nor hewers of wood to produce primary materials to be processed in other parts of the country which will get the benefit from the downstream timber industry.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What about Thompson's bairns?

Mr. Thompson: In Galloway they are all Geordie Thompson's bairns and at the next election they will remain Geordie Thompson's bairns.
We want timber processing in Galloway. I draw the attention of the House to an excellent consultative document produced by the regional council and simply called "A Study of Forest Resources". Page 15 of that document says:
The conclusion reached is that there does not appear to be any technical reason why, in time, 90 per cent or more of the Region's timber output should not be processed locally".
If there are to be a particle mill and a pulp mill in Galloway, I would stake a strong claim to one of them being in the Wigtown district, which has such a terrible unemployment problem.
The Scots will note that the Government are tonight willing to vote money to Workington. But what are the Government doing about the Scottish Timber Products mill at Cowie? Everyone from the Secretary of State for Scotland downwards admits that that mill is essential to Scotland's future as a timber processor. I understand that the Scottish Development Agency is looking for a private sector partner for this enterprise. The Government should now allow the SDA to keep Cowie going until such a partner is found.
Everyone in Scotland agrees that this modern mill, whatever the faults of its former management or the defects of its financial provision, is absolutely essential both to the industry in Scotland and as a source of much-needed jobs in the Central Region where youth unemployment is the second highest in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I am sure that it is not in the hon. Gentleman's nature to mislead the House or the country. I am sure that he is very much aware that

the Government are doing a great deal for Scottish Timber Products. The position is that we now have three projects that are being evaluated with regard to Scottish Timber Products. The hon. Gentleman should know—I understand he has made some inquiries from STP—that it is not possible for the Scottish Development Agency to inject management into what is a specialised industry.
If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge at all about forestry and about the chipboard industry he will realise that it is better to proceed, as the Government propose, by seeking to get a purchaser for STP which will provide the expertise in management terms that will be to the long-term benefit and interests of the employees of STP. I can assure him that the employees themselves and the people in the Central Region also accept the Government's involvement in this.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening along those lines. In fact, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to me in exactly those terms. I agree that all these efforts have been made, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, when he reads Hansard, that I have in no way contradicted anything that he said. The hon. Gentleman said exactly what his right hon. Friend told me, and what I have said matches up with that. But surely it is essential to keep the mill going until the Government are able to clinch a deal with one of the partners for whom they are looking, and I think that the Minister will agree with me about that as well.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to divide the House in order to fire a shot across the Government's bows to teach them that forestry requires proper and regular debates in this House and to make clear that we demand that Scottish timber should, in the long run, be processed in Scotland.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to have this opportunity to take up what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said in some detail.
First, however, I want to underline the outstanding work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page) in trying to bring jobs to an area of very high unemployment. The Minister said


that unemployment in the area was of the order of 6·5 per cent. In Dumfries and Galloway it is at least at that level and even as high as 14 per cent. in certain areas in my constituency.
I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions, and I welcome what he said about investment in industry in areas of high unemployment, especially in special development areas, of which I approve strongly.
I want to refer to some further repercussions of the grant to Thames Board, especially in relation to timber production in Scotland, and I do so in terms of the marketing area from where trees are drawn for Workington—and not in a Scotland or North of England context, but in the whole Solway estuarial context, where trees are grown and supplied to Workington. This includes Newcastleton, Keilder, Cumbria. Dumfries and Galloway.
This decision will have a very long-term impact on my constituency and on Galloway, which is the region in Scotland which has the highest percentage of aforestation of any region in the whole country. I ask the Minister to think again, if not to take further advice from his officials, about his indication that the majority of the timber came from the private sector.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentle man is quite correct. Although there will be supplies from the private sector in Scotland, the bulk will be from the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Munro: I am grateful for that intervention. Fortunately, the Dumfries and Galloway region has had the foresight to prepare for regional councillors a detailed programme and consultation document on the future of forestry in the area. It is an industry which is most important for Scotland. I welcome this initiative and the assessment of future potential and how to maximise employment in the region from forestry and the development of timber activities in the area.
This motion—and I wish to adopt the views of by hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—will have great repercussions. Therefore, I should like an explanation of three main issues—namely, sawmill timber, pulp wood and

chipboard. At present in the region 6 per cent. of chipboard is exported, 17 per cent. of sawmill timber is exported and 27 per cent. goes to pulp, the vast majority of it to Workington. Therefore, half the timber produced in Dumfries and Galloway goes basically to Workington for pulp or to the sawmill at Workington. Thus this vast injection of capital will have an important effect on Dumfries and Galloway.
Is the decision which has been taken purely an industrial expedient, or does it comprise long-term planning for the whole of North-West England and South-West Scotland? Have the Government examined what was said by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) about the impact on the road communications of the whole area? We know the hazards of the A75 from Stranraer to Carlisle, and a substantial amount of the timber will travel along that route, on the A7, and local roads from Newcastle to Carlisle and on to Workington.
Are the Government prepared to put substantial sums of money into the infrastructure of improving roads to take a vast quantity of timber to Workington? Has that point been considered? Furthermore, have the Government considered the implications of employment in relation to Workington and timber-producing areas?
Has the South of Scotland Conservancy of the Forestry Commission been consulted? Indeed, if it has been consulted, has it been asked the right question? If the Forestry Commission is asked "Can you produce the trees?", it will answer in the affirmative. But if it is asked whether it would prefer the pulp to be taken by the shorter route, say to Dumfries or Kirkcudbright, it might take the view that that would make more economic sense than the long haul to Workington. Have the Government considered the long-term future of timber production and the long-term repercussions of any development solely in West Cumberland? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister discussed this matter with the Dumfries and Galloway region, because it is most important to the future viability of its major product in the years ahead?
In the next decade Dumfries and Galloway will have about 165,000 cubic


metres of timber available for pulp as opposed to saw-milling and board timber. That is a viable pulp-mill capacity. Will it be jeopardised because timber is likely to be taken to West Cumberland instead?

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman say how far Dumfries is from Workington?

Mr. Monro: About 65 miles. This is particularly important. I want to know whether the Government have considered those points and, if they have, I want them to give me some answers in relation to this whole issue of the production, harvesting and haulage of timber.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for bulk timber mill capacity in the area of the trees. Is he asking the Government or private enterprise to supply it? I had thought that the hon. Gentleman's policy was to leave things to the free market because he did not believe in Socialist planning.

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman knew what he was questioning me about, he would realise that his question is 10 years too soon. We cannot have a pulp mill in Dumfries and Galloway until the trees are ready for harvesting, and that will not happen for 10 years. However, if this decision is taken tonight, the opportunity will be gone for ever. Have the Government considered the long-term repercussions of this? I hope that the Minister will give me answers to my questions because the long-term issues are as important as the short-term issues.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I have listened to many speeches in the House, but I doubt if I have ever heard such sheer hypocrisy and opportunism as the contribution from the Scottish National Party tonight. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) purported to exploit an unemployment emergency in my constituency to encourage his hon. Friends to vote against the Order. A vote against the motion would not create one job in Cowie or Galloway or anywhere else in Scotland. Indeed, by voting against this motion the SNP would be destroying the employment prospects of forestry and other workers in Scotland.
I should like to say a few words about the emergency in my constituency which the SNP attempted to misuse in order to mislead the House tonight. It appears to me that SNP Members did not have the courtesy to be here at the start of the debate when the Minister moved the motion, and their ignorance about the terms of the motion is matched by their ignorance about the Scottish Timber Products situation in my constitunecy. That company went into receivership about two months ago—another typical example of the failure of capitalism in this period of economic recession. During that two-month period, neither the SNP nor the Tories have been in official contact with the trade union movement in that factory. I shall tell the House who has been in contact, and that is the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing). and I who have been in the forefront of the campaign. I shall also tell the House something that will stick in the craw of the SNP—that is that we shall win this campaign.
We have been backed not just by the working class in Cowie and Scotland, but by more than 40 Labour MPs from Scotland and from south of the border who have supported a motion for a rescue operation. We have been backed by the trade union movement, at local level by the Stirling District Trades Council, by the might of the Transport and General Workers Union, and by the Scottish TUC.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is relating this to the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Canavan: I am answering points that have been put forward by hon. Members opposite to try to encourage other hon. Members to vote against the motion, which is intended to provide financial assistance for a mill in Workington. What I am saying is related to the situation in my constituency. Hon. Members opposite were allowed to use it as an example and I am merely answering their points.
The situation at Cowie is not just about 400 jobs in the immediate area. A survey by Edinburgh University indicates that up to 2,000 jobs could be at stake when one takes into account the effects


on road haulage and the timber and forestry industry generally. Jobs south of the border could also be in danger because some of the raw material, particularly resin, comes from England.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said, there are three offers in and part of the progress that we have had so far has been due to the pressure from the Labour and trade union movement. I understand that the offers are conditional on Government assistance being forthcoming and it is misleading for hon. Members to suggest that the Government are unwilling to give assistance.
Looking at the history of the firm, it could be argued that Governments have possibly been too generous in the past in giving public money without getting the public accountability that would have ensured a long-term, viable economic future for the company and the long-term security of the workers' jobs. There is one way in which that can best be achieved and that is through a public stake in the company by the Scottish Development Agency. That is the line that the trade union movement and I have been taking.
We shall win the battle and not in a silly Scotland versus England way. The original name of the firm was Scottish Timber Products. Despite that name, it was registered in England—though that did not make it any stronger in terms of riding the recession or the troubles of capitalism. Capitalism is in trouble north and south of the border, even though the SNP thinks it can build a capitalist empire north of the River Tweed.
Nothing will be gained by voting against the motion. Let everyone realise that the SNP action is just a cheap political stunt. Scottish Timber Products will not be saved by the hypocritical chanters and opportunists in the SNP. It will be saved by the unity and strength of the Labour movement.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): It would be difficult—[Interruption]—to follow the speech of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself no credit if we do not hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Marshall: I hope that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will forgive me if I do not join in what appears to be a private battle. The hon. Gentleman's speech did, however, underline one of the main criticisms of the way this matter has been handled.
Once again the Minister of State made an extremely poor presentation. There was very little on which we could base a judgment. The whole question of the future of the timber industry in Scotland has been raised on all sides and it is a matter to which I hope the Minister will address himself.
The Minister gave an extremely thin presentation. We have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman. He is an amiable chap, but he seems to rely on this amiable late-night attitude to present matters in a very thin way. If it had not been for my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and Workington (Mr. Page) and some Scottish Members, many matters would never have been put into proper perspective. Issues of the greatest importance that were not mentioned by the Minister are the infrastructure and transportation involved in this important development.
To take the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman posed, the nub of the argument is whether Unilever would have gone ahead without Government assistance. That is the question to which we must address ourselves.
The Minister was bland. He said that the Department has carried out an investigation, but his evidence was nonexistent. Therefore there must be grave doubt as to the ability of the Department properly to scrutinise matters that arise under Section 8.
What evidence were we given? There was no reference to the profitability of the company. There was no explanation that Thames Board Mills Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever. There was no attempt to describe the profit pattern of the company within Unilever. No reference was made to the likely cash flow or expected earnings from the project. If any part of the Government is to talk about expenditure of this sort, we expect to have some reasonable explanation of, the track record and the anticipation.
The basic question is whether Unilever would have gone ahead with the project without Government assistance. What is the evidence? Unfortunately, the Minister would not give way when I sought to question him on the matter. The only evidence that is available to us is in the report and accounts for the year ending 1976. They show that Unilever doubled its retained profits between 1975–76, a fact that I greatly welcome. I wish that there were more British companies that could show the same record. That is the only evidence, and prima facie it hardly suggests that here is a company this is profitable at this moment. Therefore, we need to have a good deal more reassurance.
Appendix 1 of the annual report on the Industry Act lays down the criteria under which the selective investment schemes are to operate. It lays down a detailed list, none of which was touched on by the Minister. All that we had from the right hon. Gentleman was the bland assertion that Unilever would not have gone ahead with the project without Government assistance. There was no reference to advancement in time or to a scale of efficiency. There is no back-up for the argument that the Government have put forward.
It is not good enough. Bearing in mind the history of these matters, it is not surprising that when a motion of this nature comes before us, some of us are tempted to oppose it—[Interruption.] The Minister is always sitting on the Government Front Bench late at night with nothing to contribute and no work to do. He is simply a member of the late-night barracking brigade. No doubt he would be much happier below the Gangway. That is where he is most at home.
What will be the likely situation if the development goes ahead? My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made out a good case—far better than the right hon. Gentleman's—for the scheme, and I am convinced that it is a sound project. Why should we support this major development?
I speak as one who has seen the mill from its inception. It may be that I am the last surviving commercial director of the old Workington Iron and Steel Company. When the board mill came to

Workington it made a tremendous difference to the whole local economy. It was a private enterprise development. It has to be said that it was the run-down by British Steel of Workington following on the run-down of Millom that created much of the unemployment that has afflicted East Cumberland.
In this instance we have a good example of private enterprise providing employment and a long-term future for the area. Therefore, it is to be welcomed. One wants to see it going on. However, it is not sufficient to say, as did the Minister, that the project is something that the Government should support because Unilever would not have gone ahead unless the Government had done something about it. There is no evidence for that assertion.
I am persuaded that the scheme has intrinsic merit. It seems that there is a reasonable profitable record. Above all, and this goes right to the root of the decision that we are taking tonight—I am perfectly willing to confess this to the House—I would rather that the Government put money into profitable private enterprise where there is a guarantee of a return to the taxpayer than into the nationalised industries and many other such projects where there is no return on the taxpayers' money. For that reason I shall support this measure, but I urge the Minister seriously to address himself to the many issues that have been raised.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes before the House again with a proposal under Section 8 he will try to present a detailed case with some financial data. This is the third time of asking in the past 12 months, and I hope that he has now hoisted that point on board. If he does not come forward with proper data, he will invite rejection of the measure, even though on the face of it, as in this case, it seems desirable.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: During the debate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) slipped very easily into the political schizophrenia of his colleagues. Throughout his election campaign he extolled the market economy and the need for non-intervention by the Government as being the only way in which to deal with unemployment and so on.
He mentioned unemployment and suggested that the Government had made it necessary for private firms continually to beg for public money. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when he has been here long enough, if he is a full-time Member, as some of us are, he will see that begging for public funds is almost a weekly routine, and he will find that it has been going on for almost a couple of decades.
We on this side of the House are not opposed to the use of public money to save jobs and regenerate British industry —in fact, we support it. But what we are still waiting for—and I say this to the Government—is full public accountability. During the last Tory Government hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds were given to private firms in subsidies and public assistance without any public accountability. We said that that had to stop. If we are to give public funds to private firms, especially when they are multinational companies such as Unilever, we expect some kind of public accountability.
I return to the question that I put to my right hon. Friend. We are to give this company anything up to £10 million and it will get a 22½ per cent. investment grant, which, on £100 million, is roughly £23 million On the assumption that this is a profitable exercise, as we are told, it will attract a 100 per cent. depreciation allowance. Therefore, over 10 years the public will have paid for this £100 million worth of capital investment. If my figures are wrong, perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me. We shall have paid for it without one ounce of public accountability being forthcoming.
In our election manifesto we said that in a situation of this kind there were two possibilities. The first was to take an equity share in the company. Why can we not have £10 million worth of equity shares in Unilever in exchange for this money? Equally, why can we not say to Unilever, "You cannot have this money until you sign a planning agreement with the unions concerned"? It seems easy for the Government when a private company meets a legitimate pay claim to tell the company that if it does so the Government will stop all kinds of aid. It is high time that we began to

use such pressure to get planning agreements.

Mr. Nelson: From the comments that he has heard this evening, would the hon. Member judge whether in this case it is essential for the taxpayer to provide £28 million towards this investment of £100 million? According to his argument, it is reasonable to ask for 28 per cent. of the equity of that venture. Can he assess whether the company would be likely to proceed with the investment in those circumstances? I do not know, but I guess that the aswer is that it would not, but what does the hon. Member think? If that were the case, he would now be arguing against the virtues that he claims to uphold.

Mr. Thomas: I do not know whether the company would have proceeded. I have not had an answer to my question. Would the company have brought forward this investment if it had not been given the money under the scheme?
I am very worried about the advance selective investment scheme because I believe that accountants are now working out projects that will allow companies to say that they will delay a project unless it receives £5 million or £10 million from the Government when it has had no intention of introducing that project at a particular time.
It is strange that a company with large sums of money, such as Unilever, should be in a position to say that it will adjust its thinking and expectations because of this scheme. I think it is an accountant's fiddle.
Under the Price Code we have given £1,000 million to private industry. This is yet another example of the failure of our capitalist system. It is time that we thought more about the expansion of public ownership and public accountability than about handing out such large sums of public money.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) was absolutely correct to say that the main supply would come from the Forestry Commission rather than from private sources. He asked why this development, which is based on Scottish timber, should take place in Workington. The explanation is


that there is already a substantial operation of this type in the place concerned. This happens to be a sector of the industry where concentration of the production units produces considerable economies, particularly in the use of shared services.
This was a major contribution to the viability of the project and an essential feature of the scheme's acceptability.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) asked why this project did not go ahead under the Paper and Board Scheme. The answer is that although the Paper and Board Scheme applies to any indigenous fibre, its primary intention is that it should encourage the use of waste materials. This would, therefore, have pre-empted a large proportion of that scheme and diverted resources.
The hon. Member asked how many projects have been approved under the scheme. A total of 31 projects have been approved involving £6·1 million of assistance, and £33 million total project value has been raised from that support.
The hon. Member said that he did not want to see the Government supporting "lame ducks" under this legislation. So far the projects that have been approved involve companies such as Albright and Wilson, Walls, Pirelli, Hamworthy Engineering, Vickers and Platts Forgings.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) was worried that this might pre-empt any further development in Scotland. It certainly will not pre-empt such development because, according to the Forestry Commission, ample raw material resources will be available.
Again, the particular operation to which the hon. Gentleman referred uses a different quality of raw material. In any case, even if he were backing further development in this category of product, he should bear in mind that even after this plant is in operation there will still be a shortfall of 100,000 tons in our ability to meet our own requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, rightly, that to vote against this motion would be voting against jobs for forestry workers in Scotland.

Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro): As I understand it, we are being asked for in

vestment to the tune of £500,000 for the creation of a single job. Has the hon. Gentleman calculated how much it would cost to alleviate United Kingdom unemployment by investment on this scale? Are we not back on a nonsense concept of solving the country's basic problem—unemployment?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman should look back to his arithmetic books and consider the figures again. There will be immediate jobs, and more jobs will be created in the supplying sector. I did not include the construction jobs, which will be short-term. There will be 258 jobs in the actual operation, plus 350 in the supplying sector—some of them, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in Scotland

Dr. McDonald: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that there is no guarantee that this project will lead to the machines required being purchased in this country? An information sheet from Thames Board Mills says:
To date an overseas design already operating in Europe and the U.S. has proved the most satisfactory in meeting the required product specification.

Mr. Williams: There is one particular part of the equipment that is just not available in a suitable form in this country and therefore the company has to go abroad for it. There is another part of the equipment, amounting to about a £14 million element, which might conceivably be available in this country and about which the company is now undertaking discussion with a firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). It has still not reached a final decision on that, however. But, as I have said, this company, wherever it can, bases its purchases in Britain.
We all recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, not the Scottish nationalists, has led the campaign to save the operation at Cowie, and he deserves public credit for his vigorous campaigning. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has said, substantial Government aid is available for that project as long as a viable proposal is received. There is nothing unusual about using a receivership. I used the same route to save a dye mill that is now a viable and successful process.
Opposition to this motion is a cynical operation by the SNP, but it is equally cynical of the Conservatives to support it because they are doing so not because they are necessarily convinced of any industrial merit but because it is convenient in marginal constituency terms. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) should bear in mind what I said

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay or undertake to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by the Industry Act 1975 and the industry (Amendment) Act 1976, in respect of the business carried on by Thames Board Mills Ltd. at Workington sums exceeding £ million but not exceeding £10·5 million.

—that his party led the opposition to the funds which were used—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 11.

Division No. 27]
AYES
[1.0 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Noble, Mike


Armstrong, Ernest
Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Price, William (Rugby)


Bates, Alf
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Campbell, Ian
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Le Marchant, Spencer
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Clemitson, Ivor
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cohen, Stanley
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Coleman, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cryer, Bob
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ward, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Watkins, David


Dempsey, James
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch' ch)


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mrs. Ann Taylor.


Forrester, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald






NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Steel, Rt Hon David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Thompson, George
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and Mr. Douglas Crawford.


MacCormick, Iain
Watt, Hamish



Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Andrew



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the third occasion on which this vital tool for the assistance of Members of the House has been blocked for the simple reason that there has been an endeavour to put it through without any discussion or question. I know from discussions with my hon. Friends that they have no objection in principle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I do not think that the merits of the way in which the matter has been presented can be considered at this time of night. The matter will obviously come before the House on another occasion. I think that that would be the right time for the hon. Gentleman to put his point.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter has been before the House before, in August, when, in a similar way to this evening, it was not made exempted business. In what way can hon. Members draw to the attention of those who are responsible for the Order Paper that they do not necessarily wish to oppose the motion but want an opportunity for the matter to be discussed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I am not able to help the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL EYE INFIRMARY, PLYMOUTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

1.11 a.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: I have sought the Adjournment debate tonight on the staffing level of the Royal Eye Infirmary at Plymouth because the position there is now desperate, and because all normal channels have been exhausted. The position can perhaps best be summed up in a letter that a patient at the Eye Infirmary wrote to me last weekend. She stated:
I have attended the Eye Infirmary this past six weeks, so I can speak from experience of how the consultants and nursing staff are working themselves into the ground trying to cope with the hundreds of people that need their help. I myself went to Mr. Ellis's clinic"—
Mr. Ellis is one of the four consultants—
and when he arrived to start work he had to push his way through the crowd of patients that were unable to find a seat. There were so many there that when I left two and a half hours later there was still the same number of people waiting for attention.
In the final part of her letter she begs me to do all I can to help her and a number of other people who are very much affected by the situation.
If one looks at the background one sees that it becomes worse. The Royal Eye Infirmary serves the population not simply of Plymouth but of the surrounding districts, about 412,000 people. In the summer months this number is swollen by the great influx of holidaymakers, so in summer we are thinking in terms of half a million people.
The waiting list is shocking. It is about 1,600 at present. Despite the fact that the amount of surgery has increased enormously, by 62 per cent since 1971, the waiting list remains the same. The waiting period for individual patients in a routine case—I put "routine" in inverted commas—can be two or three years. Imagine the misery, worry and anxiety that can afflict these individual patients as they wait to be seen. Eyesight is, after all, most precious, and should never be risked.
What is more disturbing is that there is evidence that some people have actually


gone blind while they were waiting. One case of which I know concerns a patient who had impaired vision. His doctor quite properly referred him to an ophthalmic optician who thought that there were early cataracts and referred the patient to the infirmary. He was put on the routine list—quite properly, as it seemed at the time. It was not until two years later that the patient was seen. He had cataracts, but he was also found to have glaucoma, and he went blind.
Even for one patient, that is intolerable. It is not something that I would care to endure, and I strongly suspect that the Minister would not care to endure it, either. I fail to see why my constituents or the people of Plymouth and the surrounding districts are asked to put up with something that I would not tolerate.
What is more, the position makes for great strain, not only physical but nervous, on the staff. How can they be expected to do a really good job in those circumstances? They do very fine work, but it must be a great anxiety to them to know that there are the present waiting lists. I know of a consultant who is away on sick leave, and it is a fair bet that his sickness is in part caused by the strain and pressure of the work that he has done.
There is no doubt that the key point is the shortage of staff. There are recommended minimum acceptable staffing levels laid down by the Faculty of Ophthalmologists of the Royal College of Surgeons. On those criteria, the staffing levels at the Royal Eye Infirmary in Plymouth are only 68 per cent of what the faculty regards as the minimum. I emphasise that that assumes that everybody is in post. In fact, through vacancies and sickness the present level is about 50 per cent. It is hardly surprising that the situation is becoming so difficult.
I have discussed with the consultants, and with one in particular who has acted as their spokesman, what they regard as the necessary additions to the staff. They are firmly of the opinion that what is required are two registrars, preferably one senior and one ordinary one, but certainly two. The registrars are in a sense the middle rank of staff. At present there is a complete lack of middle-rank staff at the Royal Eye Infirmary. There are

four consultants at the top and then junior staff underneath.
The difficulty is that if one consultant is away sick, on holiday or away for any other reason, there is no one who can take over his work. Registrars are sufficiently senior to be able to take operations on their own, provided the operations are not too difficult. They can take over the out-patient clinics and generally provide the specialised back-up for the consultants. They are consultants in training, and I should have thought that an area such as Plymouth, with its wide population base and the work that is already done at the Royal Eye Infirmary, would be an excellent training ground for them, apart from the value of the work they could give to the infirmary.
I have specifically asked whether the consultants would want another consultant to join them, and they have made it abundantly clear that a fifth consultant is not the option that they would wish. It is interesting to compare the position with that in Exeter, the nearest comparable centre, where there are two registrars and there are not the same difficulties. The appointment of two registrars is supported by not only the community health council and the district management team but the area health authority and, I understand, the regional health authority.
The procrastination that has occurred is almost beyond belief. The consultants put forward their recommendations for registrars as long ago as 1971. In the meantime there have been one or two other more junior appointments, but not these two key appointments. The latest news is that the appointments have been refused.
One must see the matter against the background that at no time has any high-ranking official in the DHSS administration to my knowledge visited the Royal Eye Infirmary since 1970 to discuss the position with the consultants. What is more, the then Minister of Health was made aware of the situation in 1975. He was also the local Member of Parliament for one of the Plymouth seats. Nothing appeared to be done, so we now face an extremely difficult situation where every conceivable avenue has been explored


and still one comes up apparently against a brick wall of refusal.
I feel that I must tonight ask the Minister certain direct questions to which I should like direct answers. First, who precisely is responsible for the decision to refuse the appointment of the two registrars? It is certainly not the lower levels. Is it the Minister? Is it some high-ranking bureaucrat whom we cannot get at? Who is it?
Secondly, what are the reasons for the refusal? I cannot find any good reasons at all. One presumes that there must be reasons of a kind. It would be interesting and constructive to know what those reasons are.
Thirdly, I should like to know why it is that no high-ranking official has come to the Plymouth Eye Infirmary since 1970.
Fourthly, and most important, does the Minister—does his Department—accept the views of the Faculty of Ophthalmologists about staffing levels, and, if not, why not?
Fifthly, what is the point of permitting a brand new operating theatre to be built —it is hoped that it will be in operation within the next 12 months—or of having excellent modern equipment if there are inadequate numbers of staff to make full use of the operating theatre and of the very modern equipment that is there?
The Royal Eye Infirmary has a long and honourable history. It has everything there to make it a very fine centre, but it is being held back by the lack of these two registrars, and the patients and the potential patients are suffering as a result of it.
I find that there has been a pigheadedness over this refusal which is almost past belief. I also find almost incredible the extent of the procrastination, since this has dragged out over some seven years. I look to the Minister tonight to give direct answers to these questions, and I trust that he will be able to override this pigheadedness and end the procrastination which is causing such difficulties in the Royal Eye Infirmary.
I must say that I have rarely felt so angry as I have over this particular issue. If the Minister does not give me a satisfactory answer tonight, I warn him

that I shall go on and on until the situation is improved.

1.23 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am very pleased that this issue has been raised, since this will give me a chance to correct some of the wilder assertions which have been made in the local Press. I think I shall be able to answer the five queries that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) raised.
The ophthalmology service provided from the Royal Eye Infirmary, Plymouth, is a subject which has been shown to be of considerable concern to many people —the staff working in the hospital, those whose task it is to manage the service locally, and the Plymouth Community Health Council, representing the interests of local people who have been very active in pursuing this matter and in attempting to enlist the support of hon. Members whose constituents look to the Royal Eye Infirmary at Plymouth for an ophthalmology service.
If we may first mark out the areas of agreement between us, there is no doubt that the waiting times for treatment, especially for out-patient treatment, at the hospital are unacceptably long. I certainly share the concern which has been expressed in this matter by the hon. Lady. Indeed, I sympathise very much with the people who are having to wait for treatment. It is a very difficult and worring time for them. It is especially worrying to have to wait such a long time to see a consultant after the general practitioner or local optician has diagnosed that something is wrong.
It is interesting to note that the inpatient waiting list at the hospital has not altered dramatically over the past few years. In March 1972 there were 222 patients awaiting admission for inpatient treatment. At the end of September this year there were 261 people awaiting admission.
In this respect at least we are facing a new problem. The problem of waiting lists and waiting times for hospital treatment in general has been with us a long time, since the inception of the NHS. It is a problem that successive Governments have had to contend with. Even in 1951, when the population was much smaller


and younger than it is now, the number on the waiting list was 500,000. At 31st March this year it was 596,000, but this is about 11,500 fewer than three months previously.
The size of waiting lists is governed by a number of inter-acting factors. I can identify about nine separate factors including fluctuations in the level of illness, changing public expectations of our ability to treat it with new surgical techniques, changes in population, the referral practices of general practitioners, consultants' clinical decisions, seasonal influences, the availability of resources, and, of course, our ability to manage them efficiently.
The hon. Lady has concentrated on staffing resources, in particular medical staffing in the senior training grades. But this is a very complex issue and it does not follow automatically that, even if the medical staffing problem, is solved, three will be a significant reduction in waiting lists.
However, the responsibility for managing the service rests with health authorities and it is they, in consultation with the intested parties, who have to seek a solution to local problems. I think that the hon. Lady's view would be that the local health authorities have attempted to tackle the problem at the Royal Eye Infirmary by creating new registrar posts, but have been prevented from doing so by the Department. That is not an accurate representation of the situation. I ought to stress that my Department has never suggested that there is not a need for additional medical staff at the Plymouth Royal Eye Infirmary.
The only point of disagreement with the local health administration is about the grade that is required to remedy the situation. To understand why this latter point should be a matter of national rather than local decision it is necessary to look at the whole question of staff in NHS hospitals. Ever since the early days of the NHS there have been disagreements about the role of doctors in junior posts. The difficulty is to identify whether they should be regarded as training posts or primarily as service posts.
On the latter view—that is the service post—junior doctors are employed essentially as assistant consultants, and are

asked to carry out the more routine or simpler medical tasks, thus leaving consultants free to deal with the particularly difficult cases. Although there are arguments that can be put forward in favour of this view, the difficult question is what is to become of the junior doctors.
Medical students are chosen from the brightest section of the population and have a long training. Virtually no qualified doctor wants to spend his time doing the simpler medical tasks under supervision, and all those young men and women in the hospital training posts want the opportunity to practise the full range of skills and to accept full responsibility for the care of patients as consultants. If there are too many juniors in relation to the number of consultants, this will not be possible.
On average, a consultant is in post for 30 years and a registrar for two. During his professional career, therefore, the consultant could train 15 registrars. One of these could replace him when he retired, but what would become of the other 14? They would have spent a number of years acquiring highly specialised skills which they would then be unable to use.
Some might enter general practice, but it is surely preferable that our future family doctors should be trained as family doctors rather than as opthalmologists or surgeons. Some would remain in training posts long after they had completed training, becoming progressively more and more dissatisfied. Many would emigrate. In fact, it is generally agreed that it was the lack of career prospects for junior hospital doctors under the old system which led many of them to emigrate and resulted in the high level of emigration in the 1960s. We would not want to encourage that any more.
The hon. Lady argued that Plymouth was asking not for one registrar for each consultant but for one to be shared between two or even among four consultants. One can go through exactly the same argument again. If every consultant has a registrar, 95 per cent. of these registrars cannot then find suitable posts. If there is only one registrar for every four consultants, this figure drops to 75 per cent. of registrars. This is surely still unacceptable. It is only when one reaches one registrar for every 10 or more consultants that the figures come into balance.
It has been argued that these calculations take no account of doctors from overseas who come here for training and then return home, or of general practitioners who choose to gain extra experience in a hospital speciality, or even of doctors who leave medical practice because of marriage or who die. The answer is that in the speciality of ophthalmology there are presently more doctors being trained for consultant posts than can hope to find them. The result is that there are twice as many doctors looking for posts as posts available, so that applicants are spending far longer in the training grades than is necessary, and are not being appointed consultants the training grades than is necessary, This situation has arisen over a period of many years, and everyone must recognise that it is far from ideal. It would be foolish to make it worse.
This attitude has been criticised as putting more emphasis on offering a career to doctors than in providing a service for patients. I think we must recognise that it is impossible to provide any service to patients without doctors, and no employer can ignore the legitimate aspirations of his employees. The problems of medical staffing in hospitals have been discussed with the profession on a number of occasions, and a number of schemes have been tried without a great deal of success.
In the late 1960s, the Department of Health and Social Security agreed with the profession that the junior grades would be regarded as primarily training rather than service grades and that service needs would be met by the appointment of consultants. This agreement was debated extensively within the profession, and, unless it is re-negotiated, it is an agreement which we regard as binding on the Department. Therefore, this whole question of meeting service needs is a matter in which the profession takes at least half of the responsibility. I do not disagree with that view, because we have entered into an agreement with the profession on that basis.
There is a joint committee of the profession and the Health Departments to look at questions of hospital staffing —the Central Manpower Committee—and it was on the advice of this committee that I turned down the application for a registrar post at Plymouth Royal Eye

Infirmary. I turned it down on the advice of the profession, amongst others.
Reference has been made to a report of the Faculty of Ophthalmology on staffing, but this reflects a school of thought which I mentioned earlier—that junior doctors are there primarily to act as assistants to consultants. Therefore, that is the reason why we do not accept the views of the Faculty of Ophthalmology in these matters.
If I may summarise what I have been saying, it is the advice of the Central Manpower Committee that the needs of Plymouth Royal Eye Infirmary could best be met by an additional career appointment—either by the appointment of a general practitioner working part time in hospital, or by the appointment of an additional consultant. The hon. Lady said that all avenues had been explored, but this is one avenue which does not seem to have been explored by the local people. If there is any pigheadedness—and I do not suggest there is—that is where it lies. We are saying that we can appoint a consultant to the infirmary. That is the way the profession wants us to work and it is the way we have agreed we shall work.
Central approval is needed to create a new consultant post, but I can assure the hon. Lady, that if a request for such a post were made by the South-Western Regional Health Authority, we would give it speedy and sympathetic consideration.
There is one more point here which is often overlooked, and which I should stress. No other country in the world relies on doctors in training to provide a major element in staffing the hospital service. It is surely more reasonable to provide a service with fully trained and skilled doctors, including GPs of the kind I have mentioned.
Having explained at some length why my Department is unable to agree to a particular course of action to increase an aspect of the medical staffing at the Eye Infirmary, I think it is worth noting the development that has taken place in the merical staffing there in recent years. In 1971 there were four consultants plus one medical assistant working at the hospital, and they had no junior staff in support. In 1977 there are four consultants, three senior house officers—a fourth


will take up appointment in January 1978 —two medical assistants, one full time, the other "maximum part time" spending six sessions a week on the school eye service, and two clinical assistants, one working two sessions a week, the other, a retired consultant, working a single session, whose duty it is to scrutinise the referrals from general practitioners for out-patient appointments so as to ensure, as far as is possible, that cases requiring urgent attention are not missed. Thus, one can see that, whatever else, we are not this evening talking about a victim of "the cuts". In any case, I believe the hon. Lady thought that the cuts had not been deep enough.
How, then, is it that if I can point to six years of development on the medical staffing front I cannot point to a corresponding development—and by that I mean a reduction—in the infirmary's waiting list? I have already dealt with this in my remarks on the overall problem of waiting lists. I must mention the interacting factors which go to make up the overall problem. I have mentioned that general practitioners' referral practices affected the position as did surgical developments and the public's expectations of our ability to cope with them. In short, the quality of the ophthalmology service provided from the Plymouth Royal Eye Infirmary is as good now as it ever was—and, in all probability, for the most part a good deal better. What has changed is our expectation of that service.
I do not, however, in any way wish to appear complacent, and I have acknowledged that waiting times for treatment at the infirmary are unacceptably long. I have indicated how my Department thinks, on the basis of advice from the Central Manpower Committee, that the

infirmary's staffing problems might be tackled in a certain way.
Before closing I should also mention other improvements which local management plans to make to the fabric of the infirmary—improvements which are factors bearing on the overall position. First, I would stress that a surgical service is dependent on its operating theatres and the infirmary is deficient in this respect. The theatre opens directly on to a main corridor and has a wooden floor which vibrates when the train passes. I have to travel on that train tomorrow, and I shall have an immediate reminder of tonight's debate. Work to provide a new theatre in an improved location will start in early 1978.
Secondly, I would point out that the specialty of ophthalmology is characterised by it proportionately high out-patient bias, and here again improvements to the infirmary's out-patient department will begin shortly. The cost of the new theatre and out-patient department improvements will be about £200,000.
That is the solution to the infirmary's problems. It is a solution that the profession wants and it is a solution that the profession has agreed with the Department and the Department with the profession, namely, that there should be fully trained doctors or a doctor appointed to the infirmary, and a consultant or general practitioner is the sort of skilled person who fulfils that category. If a request for a consultant for the hosptal is made to my Department, we shall regard it with a great deal of sympathy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.